|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML17264A851 | | | number = ML17264A851 |
| | issue date = 03/19/1997 | | | issue date = 03/19/1997 |
| | title = Rg&E Re Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Spent Fuel Pool Re-racking Licensing Rept. | | | title = Rg&E Re Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Spent Fuel Pool Re-racking Licensing Rept |
| | author name = Biddle J, Hassler L, Hennington P | | | author name = Biddle J, Hassler L, Hennington P |
| | author affiliation = FRAMATOME | | | author affiliation = FRAMATOME |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:20440-7 (12I95) | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| ENGINEERING INFORMATION RECORD Document Identifier 61 - 1258768-01 Title Ginna Spent Fuel Pool Re-racking Ucenslng Report PREPARED REVIEWED BY:
| |
| BY'ee below See below Signature Signature Technical Manager Statement: Initials Reviewer is Inde pendent.
| |
| Remarks:
| |
| Prepared by: Reviewed by:
| |
| 2//'F/FF Criticality f 11/<1 L. A. Hassler B. M. Palmer s/IT/TV Structural J. Biddle gjl~~ Q S/if//'q p Thermal-Hydraulic P. J. enningson D. A. arnsworth VjNOOR'S OOCUhiEt4T RFVIEVr
| |
| : l. P ~
| |
| APPROVED ARPROVEihQPMIT FINALOOCUl~
| |
| UHQglcru'(his LlAYMi& ~ io
| |
| ~'J
| |
| ~ ~ *'PPR0 VEO AS liGTED.llAViEC'H V4P H AVOSU ('.ITF:lsALOOCL>.'i'TS.li'JiNU Vi. Rutherford S. Q. King FACTUFiO:O llAYl RGCECO ASAPP iOVEO.
| |
| (lOT/PNOVEOCORREC ANDREEUUl/lT iL Q Pl~ >EV O':'(OT REDU(REO-l/'FAGTURtNO hlAV PRDCEEO AP'.iROVALCFP+Ll DOC"VEVT OOaS ROT O'ELIEVE EU/iPLI R i RDhl FUL(. CO!P L(h'iCE'hflTH CONTRACT OR F NCHAEE CODE/< <I"lREI:O'.i S.
| |
| .. d~+. r~~i)
| |
| I RG"'FIEGT ER GAi i~l ""'..L:CTiilCCCRP.
| |
| 9704070046 97033i PDR ADGCK 05000244(
| |
| Page 1 of yq~
| |
| P PDR~
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| | |
| ==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| 1.1 GENERAL . 19 1.2 NEW SPENT FUEL POOL CONFIGURATION .. 20 1.3 BORATED STAINLESS STEEL RACK DESCRIPTION 21 1.3.1 Description of Region 1, Type 3 Racks 21 1.3.2 Description of Region 2, Type 2 Racks ............... 22 1.3.3 Description of Region 2, Type 4 Racks............... 23 1.3.4 Neutron Absorber Material . 24 1.3.5 Structural Materials .. 25 1.4 SUPPLIER QUALIFICATIONAND EXPERIENCE 26 1.4.1 Team Qualifications .. 26 1.4.2 Team Experience . 26 2.0 PRINCIPAL DESIGN CRITERIA 2.1 General Design Criteria 52 2.2 Structural Criteria 52 2.3 Criticality Criteria ~ 52 2.4 Thermal-Hydraulic Criteria . ...53 2.5 Radiological Criteria . 53 3.0 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 3.1 SCOPE ....54 3.2 DESIGN CRITERIA . ....55 3.2.1 Applicable Codes and Standards ...... 55 3.2.2 Acceptance Criteria, Load Combinations and Stress Limits .. 57 3.3 STRUCTURAL DESIGN FEATURES .. 63 3.4 MATERIALSOF CONSTRUCTION ..65 3.4.1 Structural Materials ..65 3.4.2 Non-structural Materials .65 3.5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS .. . 72 3.5.1 Loading Conditions ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 73 3.5.1.1 Overview ........73 3.5.1.2 Seismic Input Compliance .. ....77 3.5.2 Structural Analysis Methods ....... 100 3.5.2.1 Assumptions - Seismic/Structural 100 3.5.2.2 Analytical Procedure . 101 3.5.2.2.1 Seismic Analysis 101 3.5.2.2.2 Structural Analysis ... ~ . 103 3.5.2.2.2.1 Rack Stresses .... 103 3.5.2.2.2.2 Support Legs and Concrete Bearing Stresses .... .. ~ 104 3.5.2.2.2.3 Weld Stresses ~ .... 104 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 2
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.5:2.2.2.4 Fuel-to-Rack Impact Loads Evaluation . ... 105 3.5.2.2.2.5 Sliding and Tipping ...... 105 3.5.2.2.2.6 Expected Loads on Floor From Racks............. . 106 3.5.2.2.2.7 Pool Liner Plate Integrity Evaluation . 106 3.5.2.3 Detailed Descriptions of Mathematical Models . . 106 3.5.2.4 Detailed Documentation of Computer Codes ............. ~ . 117 3.5.2.4.1 General....... .. ~ .... 117 3.5.2.4.2 StructuraVSeismic Computer Codes . .. . 117
| |
| ~
| |
| 3.5.2.4.2.1 ANSYS .... 117 3.5.2.4.2.1.1 Summary of Element Types Used in the ANSYS Models .. ....... 118 3.5.2.4.2.1.2 Summary of ANSYS Error Reports for Element Types Used .. 119 3.5.2.4.2.2 SIMQKE .... 119 3.5.2.5 Hydrodynamic Fluid Coupling . .... 120 3.5.2.5.1 Fuel-To-Rack Hydrodynamic Coupling 120 3.5.2.5.2 Rack-To-Rack and Rack-To-Pool Hydrodynamic Coupling.... 123 3.5.2.6 Seismic Time History Factor Determinations .. 130 3.5.2.7 Rack Stiffness Sensitivity Study 132 3.5.3 Structural Evaluation ........ ~ ~ . 136 3.5.3.1 Normal, Upset and Faulted Conditions .. 136 3.5.3.1.1 Various Inputs to the 3-D Single Rack and Whole Pool Finite Element Models ~...... .. 136 3.5.3.1.1.1 Rack Structural Properties ............. 136 3.5.3.1.1.2 Fuel Structural Properties .... 142 3.5.3.1.1.2.1 Consolidated Fuel Canister Structural Properties . .... 142 3.5.3.1.1.2.2 Fuel Assembly Structural Properties ....... 143 3.5.3.1.1.3 Interface Stiffness Between Fuel and Rack . . 143 3.5.3.1.1.4 Damping ... 144 3.5.3.1.1.5 Perforated Plates .. 146 3.5.3.1.1.6 Local Gaps Surrounding Each Rack . 149 3.5.3.1.2 Rack Tube Connecting Tabs and Tube Retainer Plate Welds ... . 150 ~
| |
| 3.5.3.1.2.1 Tab/Weld Stresses Due to Seismic Loads .. .... 150 3.5.3.1.2.2 Tab/Weld Stresses Due to Fuel-to-Tube Impact ........ .... 152 3.5.3.1.2.3 Thermal Stresses in Tabs/Welds ..... .. 158 3.5.3.1.2.4 Total Tab/Weld Stresses .... 159 3.5.3.1.2.5 Borated Stainless Steel Retainer Plates Weld Stresses ... ... 159
| |
| ~
| |
| 3.5.3.1.2.6 Rack Tube Buckling Strength and Tab Weld Spacing .... 161 3.5.3.1.2.7 Rack Tube Maximum Stress Evaluation 164 3.5.3.1.3 Bottom of Rack Tube to Base Plate Welds .. .... 167 3.5.3.1.4 Welding of Support Legs ... 171 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 3
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| ~ae 3.5.3.1.5 Summary of Support Pad Loads .. . 173 3.5.3.1.6 Fuel-to-Rack Impact Loads ....... . 185 3.5.3.1.7 Summary of Single Rack 3-D Model Results . . 191 3.5.3.1.7.1 Brief Description of 3-D Single Rack Model . 191 3.5.3.1.7.2 Study of Effects of Rack Height Increase . . 192 3.5.3.1.7.2.1 Purpose of Rack Height Increase Study........ . 192 3.5.3.1.7.2.2 Modifications Required in the Rack Model... . ~ . 192 3.5.3.1.7.2.3 Results of Rack Height Increase Study ........ . 192 3.5.3.1.7.3 Peripheral Rack Attachment Study . . 196 3.5.3.1.7.3.1 Purpose of Peripheral Rack Attachment Study .. . 196 3.5.3.1.7.3.2 Peripheral Rack Model Input Adjustments ..... . 196 3.5.3.1.7.3.3 Summary of Results........... 196 3.5.3.1.7.4 Off-Centered Loading Study ....... 200 3.5.3.1.7.4.1 Purpose of Off-Centered Loading Study ....... . 200 3.5.3.1.7.4.2 Modifications Required to Analyze Off-Centered Loading Cases ...... 200 3.5.3.1.7.4.3 Summary of Off-Centered Loading Results .... 201 3.5.3.1.7.5 Comparison of Connected and Disconnected Fuel Beam Models 201 3.5.3.1.8 Summary of Whole Pool Model Results ..... 203 3.5.3.1.8.1 Rack Forces and Moments for Each Load Case ....... ...206 3.5.3.1.8.2 Final Rack Displacements for Each Load Case ~....... .. 218 3.5.3.1.8.3 Final Rack Rotations For Each Load Case . 230 3.5.3.1.8.4 Representative Plots 236 3.5.3.1.9 Support Leg and Bearing Pad Analysis .. 254 3.5.3.1.9.1 Support Leg Analysis 256 3.5.3.1.9.1.1 Existing Rack Support Analysis ... .. 256 3.5.3.1.9.1.2 Concrete and Spent Fuel Pool Liner Qualification ... 257 3.5.3.1.9.1.2.1 Average Concrete Bearing Stress .. 257 3.5.3.1.9.1.2.2 Boussinesq's Solution . 257 3.5.3.1.10 Rack Thermal Stress Analysis 260 3.5.3.1.11 Fatigue Analysis 266 3.5.3.1.12 Rack Base Plate Evaluation . 269 3.5.3.1.13 Sloshing .. 272 3.5.3.1.14 Summary of Gap Closure from Five (5) OBE's Plus One(1) SSE . ~ . 279 3.5.3.1.15 Borated Stainless Steel Functionality 283 3.5.3.1.16 U.S. Tool 4 Die Rack Structural Evaluation 284 3.5.3.1.17 Spent Fuel Pool and Liner Structural Evaluation . 287 3.5.3.1.18 Stuck Fuel Assembly - Uplift Force . 289 3.5.3.1.19 Storage Racks Lifting Analysis 292 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 4
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.5.3.2 Accident Conditions . 294 3.5.3.2.1 Methodology and Assumptions .. 294 3.5.3.2.2 Acceptance Criteria ......... 295 3.5.3.2.3 Fuel Assembly Drop Analysis .............. .. 295 3.5.3.2.3.1 Fuel Assembly-Straight Deep Drop .. ~ 296 3.5.3.2.3.1.1 Fuel Assembly Falls Through Cell to Base Plate .. 296 3.5.3.2.3.1.2 Fuel Assembly Drops into Cell and Strikes Support Leg .. ..... 301 3.5.3.2.3.2 Fuel Assembly - Shallow Drops .. ..... 304 3.5.3.2.3.2.1 Flat Impact on Top Interface of the Racks..... ..... 305 3.5.3.2.3.2.2 End-On Impact.... 306 3.5.3.2.4 Tornado Missile Impact 308 3.5.3.2.5 Gate Drop .. 310 3.5.3.2.6 Rack Drops . 310 3.5.3.2.7 Cask Drop . 314 3.5.3.2.8 Summary of Accident Drop Results ...314 3.5.3.2.9 Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling 316 3.5.3.3 Tabulation of Results 317 3.5.3.4 Discussion of Results and Significance . 323 3.5.3.5 Conclusion . 323 3.5.3.6 Anticipated Impact on Operations of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant... .... 324
| |
| | |
| ==3.6 REFERENCES==
| |
| 325 4.0 CRITICALITYEVALUATION
| |
| | |
| ==4.1 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| . ~
| |
| 328 4.1.1 Region 1 Normal Condition . 328 4.1.2 Region 2 Normal Condition . 329 4.1.3 Abnormal Conditions ........ 329 4.2 ANALYTICALMETHODS . ...330 4.2.1 Criticality Analysis Methodology ........ 331 4.2.2 Tolerance Evaluation/Burnup Isotopic Generation with CASMO-3 . ........ 331 4.2.3 Burnup Credit Methodology .. ... .... 332
| |
| ~
| |
| 4.2.4 Boraflex Degradation/Shrinkage Methodology .. 333 4.3 CRITICALITYANALYSES... 334 4.3.1 Input Parameters ............, ..335 4.3.1.1 Fuel Assembly Description .. 335 4.3.1.2 Spent Fuel Storage Rack Dimensions . 335 4.3.1.3 Material Specifications . 335 4.3.2 Tolerance/Uncertainty Evaluation . .. 335 4.3.2.1 Fuel Rack Tolerance Analysis Methodology 336 4.3.2.2 Off-Center Fuel Assembly Analysis . 336 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 5
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| ~Pa e 4.3.2.3 Storage Pool Coolant Temperature Effects . 336 4.3.2.4 Fuel Assembly Mechanical Tolerances ........ .. 337 4.3.2.5 Most Reactive Fuel Type ...... ......................
| |
| ~ 337 4.3.2.5.1 Intact Fuel Assemblies..... ..... 337 4.3.2.5.2 Consolidated Fuel Containers ....... 338 4.3.2.6 Summary of Biases, Penalties, and Uncertainties in Analysis..... .. 338
| |
| '.3.3 Region 1 Analysis .. 338 4.3.3.1 Region 1 Geometry Models.......... ............ .. 338 4.3.3.2 Burnup Credit 4.3.4 Region 2 Analysis
| |
| .................... ~..............
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 339 339 4.3.4.1 Region 2 Geometry Models...... ~ ~........ ~....... 340 4.3.4.1.1 Rack Type 1 - Boraflex Rack 4.3.4.1.2 Rack Type 2 - Borated Stainless Steel Rack.......
| |
| 4.3.4.1.3 Region 2 Combined Model for Rack Type 4 Evaluation ........
| |
| 340 340 340 4.3.4.2 Region 2 Loading Curve Generation... ~ ..... 341 4.3.4.2.1 Base Burnup vs Enrichment Curve Generation . 341 4.3.4.3 Generation of the Loading Curve for Abnormal Assemblies .......... 341 4.3.5 Interface Effects . 342 4.3.6 Accident Analysis .. 343 4.3.6.1 Region 1 Assembly Drop Analyses ...... 343 4.3.6.2 Region 2 Assembly Drop Analyses . . ~ ~ 344 4.3.6.3 Seismic Analysis .. 345 4.3.6.3.1 Region 1 Seismic Analysis .. 346 4.3.6.3.2 Region 2 Seismic Analysis .. .. ~ 346 4.3.6.3.3 Interface Region Seismic Analysis . 346 4.3.7 Summary of Results 346 4.3.7.1 Analytical Results for Region 1 347 4.3.7.1.1 Normal Condition Results 347 4.3.7.1.2 Burnup Versus Enrichment Curve ....... ~................. 348 4.3.7.1.3 IFBA Rod Requirements ...... 348 4.3.7.1.4 Accident Conditions..... 348 4.3.7.2 Analytical Results for Region 2 349 4.3.7.2.1 Analytical Results for Normal Conditions... 349 4.3.7.2.2 Base Burnup Versus Enrichment Curve .................... 350 4.3.7.2.3 Loading Curve for Abnormally Burned Assemblies ........... 351 4.3.7.2.4 Results for Accident Conditions .. 351 4.3.8 Fuel Rod Consolidation . 352 4.3.9 Acceptance Criteria for Criticality 353 4.4 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 354 4.4.1 KENO V.a Bias 354 4.4.1.1 Critical Experiments .... 354 4.4.1.2 CASMO-3/KENO V.a Benchmarks 357 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 6
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae 4.4.1.3 KENO V.a Infinite to Finite Model Comparison . 357 4.4.2 Burnup Credit Methodology ....................... 358 4.4.2.1 Axial Profile Generation . 0 ~ 358 4.4.2.2 Axial Profile Isotopic Concentration Generation 359 4.4.2.3 Axial Reactivity Effects 0 ~ 360 4.4.2.4 Boraflex Degradation Model Margin .. 361 4.4.3 Westinghouse IFBA Documentation 361
| |
| | |
| ==4.5 REFERENCES==
| |
| 367 5.0 THERMAL-HYDRAULICEVALUATION 5 1
| |
| ~ INTRODUCTION ~ ~ 429 5.2 CRITERIA 430 5.3 ASSUMPTIONS....................................... 430 5.4 DISCUSSION OF SPENT FUEL COOLING.................... ~ ~ 430 5.5 SPENT FUEL POOL CAPACITY AND DISCHARGE SCENARIOS ~... 431 5.5.1 Spent Fuel Pool Capacity... 431 5.5.2 Core Offload Scenarios ............. ~.................. ~ ~ 431 5.5.2.1 Normal Discharge Scenario 431 5.6 5.5.2.2 Full Core Discharge Scenario DECAY HEAT LOAD
| |
| ....................... ~ ~ 432 434 5.6.1 Full Core Decay Heat Load ............................. 434 5.7 5.6.2 Single Fuel Assembly Decay Heat Load REQUIRED CORE DECAY TIMES
| |
| ..................... 435 435 5.7.1 Single Batch Offload 435 5.7.2 Full Core Offload .. 436 5.8 LOCAL FUEL BUNDLE THERMAL-HYDRAULICS .. 436 5.8.1 Natural Circulation in the Spent Fuel Pool Storage Canisters .. 437 5.8.2 Effects of Gamma Heating in the Flux Trap Regions and Inter-Canister Gaps.... 439 5.8.2.1 Region I Type 3 Flux Traps ...... ~... 439 5.8.2.2 Region II Type 2 Inter-Canister Gaps .... ~ ~ 440 5.8.3 Flow Blockages...................... 441 5.8.4 Natural Circulation in the Consolidated Fuel Canisters............ ~ ~ 441 5.9 SPENT FUEL POOL THERMAL-HYDRAULICSANALYSIS RESULTS 442
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 5.9.1 Region I with Type 3 ATEA Racks 442 5.9.2 Region II with Type 2 ATEA Racks .. ~....
| |
| I 5.9.3 Region with Type 4 ATEA Side Racks 443 444
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 5.9.4 Natural Circulation in the Region I Flux Trap Region \ 445 5.9.5 Natural Circulation in the Region II Inter-Canister Gaps........... ~ ~ 446 5.9.6 The Effect of Flow Blockage 446 5.9.7 Natural Circulation in the Consolidated Fuel Canister ............ ~ ~ 447 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 7
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.10 LOSS OF THE SPENT FUEL COOLING SYSTEM .. ~ . ~ . ~.......... 447 5.11 COMPARISON BETWEEN ORIGEN2 RESULTS AND ASB 9-2 METHODOLOGY ................. ~............... 449 5.12 REFERENCES 6.0 RADIOLOGICALEVALUATION 6.1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA . 451 6.1.1 Offsite Dose Exposure . ... 451 6.1.2 Occupational Dose Exposure . .. 452 6.2 OFFSITE DOSE CONSEQUENCES . 452 6.2.1 Rack Drop Accident ....... 452 6.2.2 Cask Drop/Tip Accident ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 452 6.2.3 Gate Drop Accident .. .. 452 6.2.4 Consolidated Canister Drop Accident . 452 6.2.5 Fuel Handling Accident . ....... 453 6.2.6 Tornado Missile Accident . .. 453 6.3 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE . ....... 455 6.4 SOLID RADWASTE . .......... 458 6.5 GASEOUS RELEASES 460 6.6 RACK DISPOSAL 461
| |
| | |
| ==6.7 CONCLUSION==
| |
| S 461
| |
| | |
| ==6.8 REFERENCES==
| |
| . 461 7.0 QUALITYASSURANCE
| |
| | |
| ==7.1 DESCRIPTION==
| |
| OF SUPPLIER'S QUALITYASSURANCE PROGRAM . ~ .... 468
| |
| | |
| ==7.2 DESCRIPTION==
| |
| OF QUALITYASSURANCE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION . .... 468 7.2.1 Organization . ~ ...... 469 7.2.2 Quality Assurance .. ~ 469 7.2.3 Design Control . 469 7.2.4 Procurement Document Control ...469 7.2.5 Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings . ~ ... 469 7.2.6 Document Control ..... 469 7.2.7 Control of Purchased Material, Equipment, and Services ..... ... ~ . 469 7.2.8 Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components..... . 470 7.2.9 Control of Special Processes ~... 470 7.2.10 Inspection . . 470 7.2.11 Test Control ............ ~............ ~ ... 470 7.2.12 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment ............. ... 471 7.2.13 Handling, Storage, and Shipping ~.... ~... ~....... ~.......... ........ 471 7.2.14 Inspections, Tests, and Operating Status . ~... ........ 471 7.2.15 Non-Conforming Materials, Parts, or Components .. 471 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 8
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| ~ae 7.2.16 Corrective Action .. 472 7.2.17 Audits 472 8.0 ENVIRONMENTALCOST/BENEFIT ASSESSMENT 8.1 NEED FOR INCREASED STORAGE CAPACITY .'.. .. 473 8.2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS . .. 473 8.3 ALTERNATIVESTO INCREASED STORAGE CAPACITY . .. 473 8.4 COMMITMENTOF MATERIALRESOURCES . 474 8.5 HEAT RELEASED TO THE ENVIRONMENT ... ..475 Table 1.3-1 Number of Cells by Rack Type . 29 Table 1.3-2 Rack Dimensions, Weight, Supports .... 30 Table 1.3-3 Design Data for Region 1, Type 3 Racks (Fresh Fuel and Spent Fuel) .. 0 ~ 31 Table 1.3-4 Design Data for Region 2, Type 2 Racks (Spent Fuel) .. . ~ ~ 32 Table 1.3-5 Design Data for Region 2, Type 4 Racks (Spent Fuel) . 33 Table 1.4-1 Framatome/ATEA Spent Fuel Racks..... 34 Table 1.4-2 Borated Stainless Steel Experience (Wet Storage) .. 35 Table 3.2-1 Stress Acceptance Criteria - Storage Racks ... 61 Table 3.2-2 304L Stainless Steel - Stress Acceptance Criteria ~ . .62 Table 3.4-1 Materials of Construction 67 Table 3.4-2 Material: 304 L Stainless Steel Plate, Bar and Pipe ....... 68 Table 3.4-3 Material: 304 Stainless Steel Plate'and Bar 69 Table 3.4-4 Material: 630 Precipitation Hardened Steel..... ....... 70 Table 3.4-5 C oncrete ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 71 Table 3.4-6 Zircaloy-4 Tubing Material ....... 71 Table 3.4-7 Borated Stainless Steel .. ...71 Table 3.4-8 B orafl ex ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .......71 Table 3.5-1 Regulatory Guide 1.60 Horizontal Spectra ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 78 Table 3.5-2 SSE Horizontal Spectra ....78 Table 3.5-3 OBE Horizontal Spectra .79 Table 3.5-4 Regulatory Guide 1.60 Vertical Spectra .. ...79 Table 3.5-5 SSE Vertical Spectra ....79 Table 3.5-6 OBE Vertical Spectra 80 Table 3.5-7 Cross-Correlation Factors for SSE Time Histories .. ~ .....80 Table 3.5-8 Cross-Correlation Factors for OBE Time Histories........ 81 Table 3.5-9 Geometric Parameters for Hydrodynamic Mass Coupling-Summary Table . 127 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 9
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.5-10 Rack Hydrodynamic Coupling Masses Standard Configuration (No Type 4 Racks Installed) .. 128 Table 3.5-11 Rack Hydrodynamic Coupling Masses Extended Configuration (Type 4 Racks Installed) .. .... 129 Table 3.5.12 Summary of Determination of SSE Time History Factor (Using Rack 8 (2B) Loaded with Consolidated Fuel, mu=0.8) . .
| |
| ~ 131 Table 3.5-13 Summary of Determination of OBE Time History Factor (Using Rack 8 (2B) Loaded with Unconsolidated Fuel, mu=0.8) .... ... ~ . 132 Table 3.5-14 Mechanical Tab/Weld Stresses . 158 Table 3.5-15 Tabs/Welds Thermal Stresses 158 Table 3.5-16 Rack Cross-Section Properties for Tubes .. 162 Table 3.5-17 Compressive Rack Corner Tube Stresses tpsi] . .. 163 Table 3.5-18 Summary of Tube Stresses 166 Table 3.5-19 Base Plate Welds Cross-Section Properties for New ATEA Racks ....... 168 Table 3.5-20 Base Plate & Weld Stress Summary for New ATEA Racks ........ 170 Table 3.5-21 Summation of Support Leg Weld Stresses . .... 172 Table 3.5-22 Max. Horiz. Model Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹1 . . 173 Table 3.5-23 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LC¹1 173 Table 3.5-24 Max. Horiz. Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹2 174 Table 3.5-25 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹2 .. ~ ~ .. 174 Table 3.5-26 Max. Horiz. Model Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹3 . 175 Table 3.5-27 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹3 175 Table 3.5-28 Max. Horiz. Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹4 .... 176 Table 3.5-29 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹4 .... 176 Table 3.5-30 Max. Horiz. Model Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹5 . . 177 Table 3.5-31 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹5 .. 177 Table 3.5-32 Max. Horiz. Model Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹6 .. 178 Table 3.5-33 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹6 ......... 178 Table 3.5-34 Max. Horiz. Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹7 ..... 179 Table 3.5-35 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹7 ............... . 179 Table 3.5-36 Max. Horiz. Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹8 . ~ 180 Table 3.5-37 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹8 . ~ .. 180 Table 3.5-38 Max. Horiz. Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹9 . 181 Table 3.5-39 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹9 .. . 181 Table 3.540 Max. Horiz. Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹10 ...... 182 Table 3.5-41 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹10 182 Table 3.5-42 Max. Horiz. Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹11 183 Table 3.5-43 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹11 183 Table 3.5-44 Max. Horiz. Leg Forces SRSS - LC¹12 ... 184 Table 3.5-45 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces - LC¹12 . 184 Table 3.5-46 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹1 ........ ~ 185 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 10
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.5-47 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹2 .. .
| |
| ~ .... 185 Table 3.5-48 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹3 .... 186 Table 3.5-49 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹4... ...... 186 Table 3.5-50 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹5 187 Table 3.5-51 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹6 . 187 Table 3.5-52 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹7 .. 188 Table 3.5-53 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹8 .. 188 Table 3.5-54 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹9 .~ .. 189 Table 3.5-55 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹10.... .. 189 Table 3.5-56 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹11 . .. 190 Table 3.5-57 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹12... .. 190 Table 3.5-58 Summary of Maximum Fuel/Rack Cell Wall Impact Loa ds . 191 Table 3.5-59 Comparison of Results for Rack Model With and Without a Height Increase . ........ ........
| |
| ~ 195 Table 3.5-60 Summary of OBE Results in Peripheral Rack Analysis . .... 197 Table 3.5-61 Summary of SSE Results in Peripheral Rack Analysis .. ..... 198 Table 3.5-62 Comparison of Results for Half-Loaded Consolidated Rack 8, SSE 1, Mu=0.8 . 201 Table 3.5-63 Summary of Connected and Disconnected Fuel Beam Model Comparison Results . 203 Table 3.5-64 Summary of Whole Pool Model Load Cases .. .. 203 Table 3.5-65 Summary of Rack Loadings for Load Case ¹11 204 Table 3.5-66 Summary of Rack Loadings for Load Case ¹12 ~ 205 Table 3.5-67 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹1 . .. 206 Table 3.5-68 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹1 206 Table 3.5-69 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹2 ~ . 207 Table 3.5-70 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹2 207 Table 3.5-71 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz-LC¹3................ 208 Table 3.5-72 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹3 208 Table 3.5-73 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹4 .. 209 Table 3.5-74 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹4 ............. 209 Table 3.5-75 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹5 210 Table 3.5-76 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹5 210 Table 3.5-77 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹6 211 Table 3.5-78 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹6 211 Table 3.5-79 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹7 212 Table 3.5-80 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹7 .. 212 Table 3.5-81 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹8......... .. ~ 213 Table 3.5-82 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹8 . 213 Table 3.5-83 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹9 214 Table 3.5-84 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹9 .. ... 214 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 11
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.5-85 Rack Farces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹10 215 Table 3.5-86 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹10 . .. 215 Table 3.5-87 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹11 ... .. 216 Table 3.5-88 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹11 216 Table 3.5-89 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹12 217 Table 3.5-90 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹12 ........ .. 217 Table 3.5-91 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹1 .. 218 Table 3.5-92 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹1 . 218 Table 3.5-93 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹2 219 Table 3.5-94 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹2.... .. 219 Table 3.5-95 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹3 220 Table 3.5-96 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹3 220 Table 3.5-97 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹4 221 Table 3.5-98 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹4... 221 Table 3.5-99 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹5 222 Table 3.5-100 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹5 222 Table 3.5-101 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹6 223 Table 3.5-102 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹6 223 Table 3.5-103 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹7 224 Table 3.5-104 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹7 . 224 Table 3.5-105 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹8 225 Table 3.5-106 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹8 ~ . 225 Table 3.5-107 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹9 226 Table 3.5-108 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹9 .. 226 Table 3.5-109 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹10 227 Table 3.5-110 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹10 .. 227 Table 3.5-111 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹11 228 Table 3.5-112 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹11 ... 228 Table 3.5-113 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹12 229 Table 3.5-114 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹12 229 Table 3.5-115 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹1 ... 230 Table 3.5-116 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹2 . 230 Table 3.5-117 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹3 231 Table 3.5-118 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹4 . 231 Table 3.5-119 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹5 232 Table 3.5-120 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹6 232 Table 3.5-121 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹7 233 Table 3.5-122 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹8 . 233 Table 3.5-123 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹9 234 Table 3.5-124 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹10 234 Table 3.5-125 Final Rack Rotations - LC ¹11 235 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 12
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| ~ae Table 3.5-126 Final Rack Rotations - LC 812 .. .. 235 Table 3.5-127 Material Properties for the Pool Liner and Support Legs ... ..
| |
| ~ .. 254 Table 3.5-128 Forces Used in Qualification of the Pool Liner and Support Legs .... ...... 254 Table 3.5-129 Support Legs Force Comparison for Existing Racks .. 256 Table 3.5-130 Summation of Concrete Stresses 258 Table 3.5-131 Summation of Spent Fuel Pool Liner Stresses...... 258 Table 3.5-132 Summation of Support Leg Stresses .. 259 Table 3.5-133 Relative Disp. Due to East-West Translation ... 280 Table 3.5-134 Relative East-West Disp. Due to Rotation . . 280 Table 3.5-135 Relative Disp. Due to North-South Translation ... 281 Table 3.5-136 Relative North-South Disp. Due to Rotation .. .. 281 Table 3.5-137 Summary of East-West Relative Disp. 282 Table 3.5-138 Summary of North-South Relative Disp. ~ 282 Table 3.5-139 Seismic Loads on Racks 1 through 6 - at the Base of Rack 286 Table 3.5-140 Seismic Support Pad Load on Racks 1 through 6 Load on Each Pad .. ...... 287 Table 3.5-141 Results of Support Leg Stresses ..... 317 Table 3.5-142 Results of Concrete Stresses .............. ~ . ..... 318 Table 3.5-143 Results of Spent Fuel Pool Liner Stresses .... .. .. ~ 318 Table 3.5-144 Results of Tab Stresses ~ ..319 Table 3.5-145 Results of Tube Stresses 321 Table 3.5-146 Results of Base Plate Stresses .. ...322 Table 4.1-1 Polynomial Generated for Spent Fuel Burnup vs Enrichment Requirements for the Region 1 Racks .. 370 Table 4.1-2 Polynomial Generated Burnup vs Enrichment Requirements for the Region 2 Racks .. 371 Table 4.1-3 KENO V.a Region 1 (Rack Type 3) Results of Burnup vs Enrichment Calculations 372 Table 4.1-4 KENO V.a Region 2 (Rack Types 1, 2, & 4) Results of Burnup vs Enrichment Calculations 373 Table 4.3-1 Fuel Assembly Parameters 374 Table 4.3-2 Consolidation Canister Specifications 375 Table 4.3-3a Region 1, Rack Type 3 Cell Dimensions .. .. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 376 Table 4.3-3b Region 1, Rack Type 3 Damaged Fuel Cell Dimensions ~ ~ ~ ~ 376 Table 4.3-4 Region 2, Rack Type 1 Cell Dimensions...... . ~ 377 Table 4.3-5 Region 2, Rack Type 2 Cell Dimensions ~ ~ 377 Table 4.3-6 Table 4.3-7 Table 4.3-8 Region 2, Rack Type 4 Cell Dimensions....
| |
| Material Compositions for Non-Fuel Regions ..
| |
| Fuel Material Number Densities
| |
| '.. ~
| |
| ~
| |
| \
| |
| 0 ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 378 379 380 Table 4.3-9 Assembly Tolerance Penalties (b,k) 381 Table 4.3-10 Reactivity Uncertainty Associated With Fuel Assembly Type . 381 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 13
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| ~ae Table 4.3-11 Consolidation Container Results . 381 Table 4.3-12 Summary of Rack Type Uncertainties, Penalties, And Credits........ ~... 382 Table 4.3-13 Region 1, Rack Type 3, Dropped Assembly Accident Results ............ 383 Table 4.3-14 Region 2, Rack Types 1, 2, & 4, Dropped Assembly Accident Results ..... 383 Table 4.3-15 Seismic Event Accident Results ......... 383 Table 4.4-1 KENO V.a BIAS vs Separation Distance . 384 Table 4.4-2 Additional UO, Critical Experiment Comparisons ..................... 385 Table 4.4-3 Mixed Oxide Critical Experiment Comparisons . 386 Table 4.4-4 International Handbook Critical Experiments 387 Table 4.4-5 CASMO-3/KENO V.a Benchmark Configurations .. 387 Table 4.4-6 CASMO-3/KENO V.a Infinite Array Benchmark Comparison ........... 388 Table 4.4-7 CASMO-3/KENO V.a Infinite Array Benchmark Comparison ........... 388 Table 4.4-8 KENO V.a Infinite to Finite Model Comparison 388 Table 4.4-9 Ginna Fuel Assemblies Used for Axial Shape Evaluation 389 Table 4.4-10 Relative Axial Shapes for Typical Non-Axial Blanket Standard Fuel Assemblies 390 Table 4.4-11 Relative Axial Shapes for the Seven Zone Axial Model . 391 Table 4.4-12 Axial Burnup Shapes for the Region 2 Loading Curve 391 Table 4.4-13 Irradiation Input Data and Isotopic Concentrations for 3 Wt% Initial Enrichment Fuel at 21 GWd/mtU Burnup In Region 2 392 Table 4.4-14 Irradiation Input Data and Isotopic Concentrations for 4 Wt% Initial Enrichment Fuel at 34 GWd/mtU Burnup in Region 2....... 393 Table 4.4-15 Irradiation Input Data and Isotopic Concentrations for 5 Wt% Initial Enrichment Fuel at 45 GWd/mtU Burnup in Region 2....... 394 Table 4.4-16 Isotopic Concentrations for Fuel for Region 2 Auxiliary Curves ... ~...... 395 Table 4.4-17 Average Isotopic Concentrations for Region 1 Loading Curve............ 395 Table 4.4-18 Evaluation of Axial Shape Effects for All Rack Types..... 396 Table 4.4-19 Evaluation of Margin Provided by the Boraflex Degradation Model for Rack Type 1 . 397 Table 5.5-1 Ginna Spent Fuel Pool Inventory (Actual Ec Projected) ..... 433 Table 5.9-1 Region I Type 3 Rack Local Pool Cooling Results . ~ 443 Table 5.9-2 Region II Type 2 Rack Local Pool Cooling Results 444 Table 5.9-3 Region II Type 4 Ec Boraflex Rack Local Pool Cooling Results... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 445 Table 5.10-1 Loss of Pool Cooling and Heat-Up Time 448 Table 5.11-1 Comparison between ORIGEN2 and ASB 9-2 Results for a full core with 15 GWD/MTU burnup . 449 Table 6.2-1 OQsite Radiological Consequences of a Hypothetical Tornado Missile Accident..... ~.............................. ~... 455 Table 6.3-1 Dose Rates at Locations of Interest Around Spent Fuel Pool .............. 457 Table 6.3-2 ~
| |
| Gamma Isotopic Analysis of Spent Fuel Pool Water for 1996 ......... .. 457 ~
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 14
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 6.4-1 Radionuclide Analysis Report - Resin Activity, from the Spent Resin Tanks ........... ~ ....... .... 458
| |
| ~
| |
| Table 6.5-1 Gaseous Releases from the Auxiliary Building .. 460 Table 6A-1 Assumptions and Inputs Used in Determining Offsite Doses Due to Tornado Missile Accident Inside Auxiliary Building ........ 464 Table 6A-2 Tornado Missile Accident Source Terms for Region 1 (100 Hours of Decay) 465 Table 6A-3 Tornado Missile Accident Source Terms for Region 2 (60 Days of Decay) . 466 Table 6A-4 Dose Conversion Factors 467 i fFi e Figure 1.1-1 Spent Fuel Pool - General Arrangement ... ........ 37 Figure 1.3-1 Type 3 Rack - Perspective ............... ...38 Figure 1.3-2 Type 3 Rack - General Arrangement ....... 39 Figure 1.3-3 Type 3 Rack - Detail of Base............. .40 Figure 1.3-4 Type 3 Rack - Vertical Section . ..... 41 Figure 1.3-5 Type 3 Rack - Top View . ..... 42 Figure 1.3-6 Type 3 Rack - Details of Connecting Tabs .. ...43 Figure 1.3-7 Type 2 Rack - Details of Top .44 Figure 1.3-8 Type 2 Rack - Perspective ....45
| |
| ~
| |
| Figure 1.3-9 Type 2 Rack - Detail of Base .46 Figure 1.3-10 Type 2 Rack - Vertical Section ...47 Figure 1.3-1 1 Type 2 Rack- Top View ...48 Figure 1.3-12 Type 2 Rack - Detail of Connecting Tabs ... 49 Figure 1.3-13 Type 4 Rack . ........ 50 Figure 1.3-14 Type 4 Rack - Top View .51 Figure 3.5-1 Avg. Calculated vs. Design Response Spectra for SSE (EW) X-Dir.... .. 82 Figure 3.5-2 Avg. Calculated vs. Design Response Spectra for SSE (NS) Y-Dir..... ....83 Figure 3.5-3 Avg. Calculated vs. Design Response Spectra for SSE Z-Dir......... .... 84 Figure 3.5-4 Avg. Calculated vs. Design Response Spectra for OBE (EW) X-Dir. ....85 Figure 3.5-5 Avg. Calculated vs. Design Response Spectra for OBE (NS) Y-Dir.... ....86 Figure 3.5-6 Avg. Calculated vs. Design Response Spectra for OBE Z-Dir. ....87 Figure 3.5-7 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for (EW) X-Dir...... 88 Figure 3.5-8 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for (EW) X-Dir. 88 Figure 3.5-9 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for (EW) X-Dir.. .....89 Figure 3.5-10 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for (EW) X-Dir. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 89 Figure 3.5-11 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for (NS) Y-Dir.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 90 Figure 3.5-12 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for (NS) Y-Dir....... ~ 90 Figure 3.5-13 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for (NS) Y-Dir. 91 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 15
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3.5-14 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for (NS) Y-Dir.. 91 Figure 3.5-15 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for Vertical Z-Dir.... 92 Figure 3.5-16 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for Vertical Z-Dir.. 92 Figure 3.5-17 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for Vertical Z-Dir.. 93 Figure 3.5-18 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for Vertical Z-Dir.. 93 Figure 3.5-19 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for (EW) X-Dir... 94 Figure 3.5-20 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for (EW) X-Dir... 94 Figure 3.5-21 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for (EW) X-Dir.. 95 Figure 3.5-22 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for (EW) X-Dir.. ... 95 Figure 3.5-23 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for (NS) Y-Dir. 96 Figure 3.5-24 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for (NS) Y-Dir. 96 Figure 3.5-25 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for (NS) Y-Dir. 97 Figure 3.5-26 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for (NS) Y-Dir. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 97 Figure 3.5-27 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for Vertical Z-Dir.... 98 Figure 3.5-28 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for Vertical Z-Dir... 98 Figure 3.5-29 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for Vertical Z-Dir. 99 Figure 3.5-30 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for Vertical Z-Dir. .....99 Figure 3.5-31 3D-Single Rack Model ... . 111
| |
| ~
| |
| Figure 3.5-32 Ginna 3D Whole Pool Rack Model . ..... 112 Figure 3.5-33 Single Rack Finite Element Model . ..... ~ 113 Figure 3.5-34 Ginna Type 2 Rack Cell Finite Element Model .. 114 Figure 3.5-35 Ginna Type 3 Rack Cell Finite Element Model . ........ 115 Figure 3.5-36 Plan View of Spent Fuel Pool ........ 116 Figure 3.5-37 Percent of Value at Stiffness of Continuous Structure vs. Stiffness Factor . ....... 135 Figure 3.5-38 Longitudinal Tab Impact Model ....... 153 Figure 3.5-39 Lateral Tab Impact Model ....... 156 Figure 3.5-40 Dimensions, Support Leg, and Gusset Plates Used for Weld Qualification . 172 Figure 3.5-41 Representation of Model for Single Rack Analysis..... 193 Figure 3.5-42 Representation of Model for Analysis of Rack 1 With Attached Rack 4A . 194 Figure 3.5-43 Vertical Leg Force Fz, Rack 1, Leg 1 - LC¹1 . 236 Figure 3.5-44 Sum of Vert. Leg Forces Fz, Rack 1 - LC¹1 237 Figure 3.5-45 Rack 1 Horizontal Force Fy - LC¹1 238 Figure 3.5-46 Rack 1 Moment Mx - LC¹1 .................... 239 Figure 3.5-47 Rack 7 Moment My - LC¹1 240 Figure 3.5-48 Fuel/Rack Impact Lds. +X, Rack 1 Top - LC¹1 ....... 241 Figure 3.5-49 Relative Displ. DX Rack5/Rack7, Top - LC¹1 242 Figure 3.5-50 Rel. Displ. DX Rack5/Rack7, Base - LC¹1 . .. 243 Figure 3.5-51 Rel. Displ. DY Rackl/Rack2, Base - LC¹1 . 244 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 16
| |
| | |
| TABIE OF CONTENTS
| |
| ~ae Figure 3.5-52 Vertical Leg Force Fz, Rack 1, Leg 1 - LC¹2 ...... .. 245 Figure 3.5-53 Sum of Vertical Leg Forces Fz, Rack 1 - LC¹2......... 246 Figure 3.5-54 Rack 1 Horizontal Force Fy - LC¹2 .. 247 Figure 3.5-55 Rack 1 Moment Mx - LC¹2 248 Figure 3.5-56 Rack 7 Moment My - LC¹2 249 Figure 3.5-57 Fuel/Rack Impact Loads +X, Rack 1 Top - LC¹2 .. .. 250 Figure 3.5-58 Relative Displ. DX Rack5/Rack7, Top - LC¹2 .......... 251 Figure 3.5-59 Relative Displ. DX Rack5/Rack7, Base - LC¹2 . 252 Figure 3.5-60 Relative Displ. DY Rackl/Rack2, Base - LC¹2 . ..... 253 Figure 3.5-61 Support Leg Details .. ~ ~ . 255 Figure 3.5-62 Support Leg Gusset Plate Details 256 Figure 3.5-63 Stress Locations For Boussinesq's Bearing Solution .. 257 Figure 3.5-64 Rack Tubes Stress Contours - To (Top Plane)... .. 261 Figure 3.5-65 Rack Tubes Stress Contours - To (Mid Plane) 261 Figure 3.5-66 Base Plate Stress Contours - To (Top Plane) . 262 Figure 3.5-67 Base Plate Stress Contours - To (Mid Plane) . 262 Figure 3.5-68 Deformed Base Plate with Legs - Ta .... . 263 Figure 3.5-69 Bottom Corner Tubes Stress Contours - Ta (Top Plane) . 264 Figure 3.5-70 Bottom Corner Tubes Stress Contours - Ta (Mid Plane) . 264 Figure 3.5-71 Base Plate Stress Contours - Ta (Top Plane) . 265 Figure 3.5-72 Base Plate Stress Contours - Ta (Mid Plane) ..
| |
| ~ 265 Figure 3.5-73 Base Plate Membrane Stress Contours ... 271 Figure 3.5-74 Base Plate Memb. + Bend. Stress Contours ...... ... 272 Figure 4.1-1 Region 1 Spent Fuel Burnup vs Enrichment Curve..... 398 Figure 4.1-2 Region 2 Burnup vs Enrichment Curve .. 399 Figure 4.1-3 Sketch of Allowable Loading Configurations for Region 1 400 Figure 4.1-4 Sketch of Allowable Loading Configurations for Region 2 ~ ~ . ~.... ~... 401 Figure 4.3-1 Ginna Spent Fuel Pool Configuration 402 Figure 4.3-2 Region 1 Type 3 Base Cell Structure for Infinite Model 403 Figure 4.3-3 Axial Profile Of Finite And Infinite Base Models.......... . ~ 404 Figure 4.3-4 Region 1 - Rack Type 3 Finite Model 405 Figure 4.3-5 Region 2 Boraflex Rack (Type 1) - KENO V.a Model . 406 Figure 4.3-6 Region 2 Borated Stainless Steel (Type 2) Racks - KENO V.a Model.... 407 Figure 4.3-7 Areas Modeled to Examine Interface Effects between Rack Types and Regions 408 Figure 4.3-8 KENO V.a Model Used to Examine Interface Effect between (1) Rack Types 3C Ec 2B, and (2) Rack Types 2B & 3E.......... 409 Figure 4.3-9 KENO V.a Model Used to Examine Interface Effects between Rack Types 1, 4F, and 3A . 410 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 17
| |
| | |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 4.3-10 KENOV.a Model Used to Examine Interface Effects between Rack Types 1, 4C, and 2A 411 Figure 4.3-11 KENO V.a Shallow Drop Accident Models . 412 Figure 4.3-12 KENO V.a Side Drop Accident Model . 413 Figure 4.3-13 KENO V.a Deep Drop Accident Model for Rack Types 2, 3, and 4 414 Figure 4.3-14 KENO V.a Region 1 Misplaced Assembly Model . 415 Figure 4.3-15 KENO V.a Region 2 Misplaced Assembly Model ............. 416 Figure 4.3-16 KENO V.a Rack Type 1 Deep Drop Accident Model 417 Figure 4.3-17 Sketch of Consolidation Canister..... 418 Figure 4.4-1 KENO V.a Results for B&W Criticals for Spacing Variations .... 419 Figure 4.4-2 Results for Water Spacing Experiments from KENO V.a 27 and 44 Group and MCNP Continuous Group Cross Sections ....... 420 Figure 4.4-3 Least Squares Fit Through Results B&WInterspersed Absorber Experiments .. 421 Figure 4.4-4 Typical Ginna Axial Burnup Shapes for Burnups between 10 and 20 GWd/mtU 422 Figure 4.4-5 Typical Ginna Axial Burnup Shapes for Burnups between 20 and 30 GWd/mtU 423 Figure 4.4-6 Typical Ginna Axial Burnup Shapes for Burnups between 30 and 40 GWd/mtU ~ ...... 424 Figure 4.4-7 Typical Ginna Axial Burnup Shapes for Burnups between 40 and 50 GWd/mtU 425 Figure 4.4-8 Non-Axial Blanket Shapes Used for Analysis 426 Figure 4.4-9 Relative Non-Blanket Axial Shapes Used in Analysis ..... 427 Figure 4.4-10 Illustration of Seven Zone Representation 428 Figure 5.8-1 Spent Fuel Pool .
| |
| Figure 5.8-2 Natural Circulation Flow Path .. . 439 Figure 5.8-3 Flux Trap Region ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 440 Figure 5.8-4 Region II Type 2 Inter-Canister Gap . . 441 Figure 5.9-1 Natural Circulation Flow Path - Type 3 Rack . .... ..... ....... 443 Figure 6-1 Overview of Proposed Re-racking of the Ginna Spent Fuel Pool .......... 463 Figure 6-2 OverviewofSpentFuel PoolConcrete WallThicknesses......... 463 endic Appendix 6A Assumptions and Input .. 464 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 18
| |
| | |
| ==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| 1.1 GENERAL The licensing analysis presented in the following sections is applicable to Rochester Gas and Electric's R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. The Ginna Nuclear Plant is located approximately 16 miles east of Rochester in Wayne County, New York. The reactor is a Westinghouse 2-Loop Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) design configuration, and utilizes a 14 x 14 fuel assembly.
| |
| The plant's spent fuel pool was originally racked in 1968. Subsequently, the pool was re-racked in 1977 and 1985. The present pool is configured with two types of racks. Region 1 consists of three flux trap type racks providing storage for 176 fuel assemblies, and Region 2 consists of six high density fixed poison (Boraflex) type racks accommodating 840 fuel assemblies for a total capacity of 1016 fuel assemblies.
| |
| The new spent fuel pool rack analysis contained in this report provides the necessary licensing analyses to reconfigure the pool to accommodate a net increase of 353 locations. This is accomplished by retaining the six existing high density racks (840 minus 12 for attachment of new racks = 828 locations), and installing new Borated Stainless Steel (BSS) racks with up to 541 additional storage locations for a new total of 1,369 locations. The analyses presented herein demonstrate that a total of 1,879 fuel assemblies can be accommodated in these 1,369 locations by storing consolidated rod canisters in some spent fuel locations. The number of fuel rods contained in the intact fuel assemblies and/or consolidated rod storage canisters stored in these locations is limited to no more than the number of rods contained in 1,879 fuel assemblies (179 fuel rods per assembly x 1,879 assemblies = 336,341 fuel rods.)
| |
| The re-configured pool willhave four types of racks in two regions. Region 1 will contain only &esh fueVspent fuel racks designated Type 3. Region 2 willcontain spent fuel racks including the existing Boraflex racks, designated Type 1, and new high density racks designated Types 2 and 4. The Type 2 racks will occupy the main portion of the available space while the Type 4 racks will be placed between the existing Type 1 Boraflex racks and the pool wall. The Regions and Types are summarized below; Figure 1.1-1 shows the new pool arrangement.
| |
| ,";8,':Re'o'n .';::.';.';:
| |
| BSS racks for fresh fueVspent fuel Existing Boraflex racks for spent fuel Interior BSS racks for spent fuel Peripheral BSS racks for spent fuel
| |
| * Only Type 2 and 3 racks will be installed at this time. The Type 4 racks are being presented as a means of achieving the maximum storage capacity of the pool and to license the configuration, but willnot be installed, unless needed in the future.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 19
| |
| | |
| The new racks will consist of a grid arrangement of vertical square-section parallel cells each designed to take one fuel assembly. The distance between cells is minimized by inserting neutron absorber plates between the cells to ensure adequate margin against criticality.
| |
| To facilitate manufacturing and assembly, these racks are not of monolithic construction but are made of modules placed side by side. Each module is comprised of multiple cells and is sized to match the geometry of the storage pool zone available and to allow for handling constraints.
| |
| The racks are designed for a forty-year service life. The materials used in their construction provide corrosion resistance in pure or borated water and dimensional and structural stability under irradiation. In addition, their structure ensures the integrity of the nuclear fuel stored in them under all circumstances, notably in the event of an earthquake.
| |
| The racks use borated stainless steel neutron absorbers in the form of rigid plates which have not been subjected to operations like bending, welding, or mechanical fastening which can reduce their strength and subsequent integrity under operating conditions. The fabrication method allows the neutron absorber plates to be held in place without bending, welding, or mechanical fastening.
| |
| 1.2 NEW SPENT FUEL POOL CONFIGURATION Figure 1.1-1 shows the general layout of the re-configured spent fuel pool. The racks are located in two regions as detailed below.
| |
| REGION 1 - Fresh fuel and spent fuel stored in a checkerboard arrangement.
| |
| Type 3: Five borated stainless steel racks accommodating:
| |
| 145 spent fuel assemblies 144 fresh fuel assemblies 5 damaged fuel assemblies REGION 2 - Spent fuel.
| |
| Type 1: Six existing Boraflex racks accommodating:
| |
| 840 spent fuel assemblies. When the six peripheral Type 4 racks are installed, 12 of the 840 locations are used to support the Type 4 racks.
| |
| Type 2: Two new borated stainless steel racks accommodating:
| |
| 187 spent fuel assemblies 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 20
| |
| | |
| Type 4: Six peripheral Borated Stainless Steel racks accommodating:
| |
| 60 spent fuel assemblies. The type 4 racks are located between the existing Type 1 Boraflex racks and the pool wall and are attached to the Type 1 racks.
| |
| 1.3 BORATED STAINLESS STEEL RACK DESCRIPTION The racks consist of vertically oriented, square cross-section cells each designed to hold one fuel assembly (see Figure 1.3-1). The number and type of racks, the number of cells per rack, and the total number of cells are shown in Table 1.3-1.
| |
| The Region 1, Type 3 and Region 2, Type 2 racks are &ee standing and self supporting. The Region 2, Type 4 racks have two legs each for support and are attached to the Region 2, Type 1 racks to provide lateral support. The dimensions, weight and number of supports for each rack are listed in Table 1.3-2.
| |
| 1.3.1 Description of Region 1, Type 3 Racks These racks accommodate fresh fuel and spent fuel in a checkerboard pattern. The geometry and dimensions of the square cells are given in Figure 1.3-5 and Table 1.3-3. The rack constituent parts are shown in Figures 1.3-1 to 1.3-6 and described below.
| |
| a) Cells for Fresh Fuel Assemblies (Figure 1.3-2, callout 2) - These cells are composed of:
| |
| Four Borated Stainless Steel (BSS) sheets forming a square cell ~ The sheets are linked together at the corners and rest on the base plate.
| |
| Eight horizontal Stainless Steel (SS) belts maintaining the BSS geometry and ensuring a very precise pitch dimension. Seven of these belts are located in the same vertical position as the seven intermediate spacer grids on the fuel assemblies.
| |
| Stainless Steel square cross-section funnels are welded to the adjacent SS cells. These funnels guide the fresh fuel assembly into the cells and prevent the inadvertent extraction of the BSS sheets when a fuel assembly is removed.
| |
| In the cells facing a pool wall or the cask area, the corresponding BSS sheet facing the wall or the cask area is replaced by a SS sheet.
| |
| b) Cells for Spent Fuel Assemblies (Figure 1.3-2, callout 1). These cells are composed of:
| |
| External SS square tubes. The tubes are formed either by welding two channel sections or by expanding a round tube into a square tube.
| |
| Four internal BSS sheets. The sheets are linked together at the corners and rest on lower tabs which are welded to the surrounding stainless steel cell walls as in the Type 2 racks (Figure 1.3-10, callout 8). At the top, stainless steel tabs are also welded to the surrounding SS cell walls to restrain the BSS plates from upward motion.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 21
| |
| | |
| In the cells facing a pool wall or the cask area, the BSS sheet facing the wall or the cask area is replaced by a SS sheet.
| |
| c) Base Plate - This plate provides a continuous horizontal surface for supporting the fuel assemblies (Figure 1.3-3, callout 1). Holes in the base plate, concentric to each cell, provide the necessary path for the cooling water flow. Grooves are machined on the upper surface of the base plate for positioning each square cell. This groove ensures a very precise center- to-center spacing of the cells (pitch). The SS square tubes are fillet welded to the base plate.
| |
| d) Connecting Tabs - The SS cells are joined together along their length by SS connecting tabs welded to the SS square tube faces (Figure 1.3-6). This forms the cells in each rack into a continuous structure. Rack assembly is performed in a machined assembly fixture resulting in a very precise center-to-center spacing of the cell (pitch).
| |
| e) Support Legs - The rack support legs are of the adjustable type (Figure 1.3-3, callout 2). The number of support legs on each rack is shown in Table 1.3-2. Each leg is composed of four pieces:
| |
| An upper SS part that is welded to the base plate and containing four flow holes for cooling.
| |
| A threaded pin with a convex spherical shape at its bottom. The pin is made of ASTM 630 steel in order to avoid galling.
| |
| A SS support plate with a concave spherical bearing surface in contact with the threaded pin.
| |
| A SS washer welded to the support plate.
| |
| f) Flat Plate and Corner Plate - The BSS cells located either on a rack edge or on a rack corner incorporate a SS flat plate or corner plate to restrain the corresponding BSS plate (Figure 1.3-2, callout 7.)
| |
| 1.3.2 Description of Region 2, Type 2 Racks This rack design accommodates spent fuel in two types of square cells: SS cells and BSS cells arranged in a checkerboard array. The geometry and dimensions of the square cells are given in Figure 1.3-10 and Table 1.3-4. The rack constituent parts are shown in Figures 1.3-7 to 1.3-12 and described below.
| |
| a) Stainless Steel Cells - These cells are made either by welding two channel sections or by expanding a round tube to a square tube (see Figure 1.3-7, callout 1).
| |
| b) Borated Stainless Steel Cells - These cells are composed of four BSS sheets linked together at the corners forming a square (see Figure 1.3-7, callout 2). The Borated Stainless Steel sheets are supported by a lower tab which is welded to the surrounding stainless steel cells ( Figure 1.3-10, callout 8). At the top a stainless steel tab is welded to the SS cell to retain the BSS plates from upward motion (Figure 1.3-10, callout 7).
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 22
| |
| | |
| c) Neutron Absorber Material - The joining tabs on both long edges of each full-length sheet of BSS are laser cut to ensure precise alignment of the sheets (see Figure 1.3-7, callout 2). The BSS sheets are located in front of the active fuel length of the fuel assembly.
| |
| d) Base Plate - The base plate provides a continuous horizontal surface for supporting the fuel assemblies (Figure 1.3-9, callout 6). Holes in the base plate, concentric to the cells, correspond to the necessary section for the cooling water flow. Grooves are machined on the upper surface of the base plate for positioning each square cell prior to welding. These grooves ensure a very precise center-to-center spacing of the cell (pitch).
| |
| e) Connecting Tabs - The SS cells are joined together along their length by SS connecting tabs welded to the SS square tube faces (Figure 1.3-12). This forms the cells in each rack into a continuous structure. Rack assembly is performed in a machined assembly fixture resulting in a very precise center- to-center spacing of the cell (pitch).
| |
| f) Support Legs - Theracksupportlegsareoftheadjustable type(Figure1.3-9,callout5). The number of support legs on each rack is shown in Table 1.3-2. Each leg is composed of four pieces:
| |
| An upper SS part that is welded to the base plate and containing four flow holes for cooling.
| |
| A threaded pin with a convex spherical shape at its bottom. The pin is made of ASTM 630 steel in order to avoid galling.
| |
| A SS support plate with a concave spherical bearing surface in contact with the threaded pin.
| |
| A SS washer welded to the support plate.
| |
| g) Flat Plate and Corner Plate - The BSS cells located either on a rack edge or on a rack corner incorporate a SS flat plate or corner plate to restrain the corresponding BSS plate.
| |
| 1.3.3 Description of Region 2, Type 4 Racks The rack design employs square cell locations. The racks and their constituent parts are shown in Figure 1.3-13).
| |
| a) Cells - These SS cells are made either by welding two channel sections or by expanding a round tube to a square tube. BSS sheets are inserted between adjacent cells. Each BSS sheet is continuous over the active length of a fuel assembly. The lower part of the BSS sheets rest on the base plate.
| |
| Qn the sides facing the existing Boraflex racks and the pool wall, there are no BSS sheets. The geometry and dimensions of the square cells are given in Figure 1.3-14 and Table 1.3-5.
| |
| b) Base Plate - The base plate provides a continuous horizontal surface for supporting the fuel assemblies. Holes in the base plate, concentric to the cells, correspond to the necessary section for the cooling water flow. Grooves are machined on the upper surface of the base plate for positioning each square cell prior to welding. These grooves ensure a very precise center-to-center spacing of the cell (pitch).
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 23
| |
| | |
| c) Connecting Tabs - On the cell sides facing the existing Boraflex racks and the pool wall, connecting tabs are welded between the SS square tube faces. This forms each rack into a continuous structure.
| |
| d) Rack Attachment - In the upper part and the lower part ofthe rack, two connecting devices attach each Type 4 rack to an existing Borafiex rack (Figure 1.3-13.) Each upper connecting device consists of a square tube inserted into a cell of the existing Boraflex rack, which is taken out of service. Each lower connecting device consists of a locking arm inserted into the cooling flow hole in the existing Boraflex rack.
| |
| e) Support Legs - There are two support legs on each Type 4 rack. The rack support legs are of the adjustable type. Each legs is composed of four pieces:
| |
| An upper SS part that is welded to the base plate and containing four flow holes for cooling.
| |
| A threaded pin with a convex spherical shape at its bottom. The pin is made of ASTM 630 steel in order to avoid galling.
| |
| A SS support plate with a concave spherical bearing surface in contact with the threaded pin.
| |
| A SS washer welded to the support plate.
| |
| 1.3.4 Neutron Absorber Material The neutron absorber material is borated stainless'teel (BSS) sheet. It is a type 304 austenitic chromium stainless steel modified by the addition of boron. The BSS is inserted in the racks for neutron absorption but, due to the design of the racks, no stresses are induced in the BSS. Moreover, the BSS sheets are fabricated using processes designed to prevent the formation of residual stresses.
| |
| The neutron"absorber material is borated stainless steel (BSS) type 304 B6/B7 in accordance with ASTM Specification A 887-89. The minimum percentage of boron in the BSS is 1.70 in weight %.
| |
| The chemical composition ofborated stainless steel to be used at Ginna is in accordance with ASTM A 887-89 type 304 B6/B7, as listed below:
| |
| Maximum Blamed ~Wi ~~ht 0 Carbon 0.08 Manganese 2.00 Phosphorous 0.045 Sulfur 0.030 Silicon 0.75 Chromium 18.00-20.00 Nickel 12.00 - 15.00 Boron 1.70 (min.)
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 24 j
| |
| | |
| Boron is added to the austenitic stainless steel for its neutron absorption properties. It is present as an alloying element and not as particles in a mixture. The microstructure consists of an austenitic stainless steel matrix with a fine, uniform dispersion of complex chromium borides.
| |
| The uniformity of the boron distribution is ensured by the manufacturing practice and may be confirmed by a number of methods, including elemental and isotopic boron analysis or direct attenuation measurement of samples taken from the finished sheet. When compared to plain 304 type stainless steel, borated stainless steels have higher strength but lower ductility and lower impact resistance. However, these properties have no impact on the Ginna rack design since the borated stainless steel plates are not part of the rack structure.
| |
| Borated stainless steels are used for neutron attenuation in spent nuclear fuel storage pool racks and in cask baskets for storage and transportation of spent fuel. These applications dictate that the borated stainless steel be exposed to aqueous environments with and without boric acid. The BSS to be used in the Ginna racks has exceptional resistance to corrosion by electrolytic hydration, oxidation, or other chemical reactions in borated or pure water for the following reasons:
| |
| Austenitic stainless steels are not susceptible to any type of corrosion leading to hydride products.
| |
| In BSS, boron is present as an alloying element which eliminates microcell effects and not as a dispersion of an heterogeneous boron component.
| |
| The proposed design, wherein the neutron absorber material is neither bent nor welded, thus preventing any cracking or thermal alteration of the metal, is an essential factor that also contributes to ensuring corrosion-resistance of this material.
| |
| Early studies of the corrosion behavior BSS with boron contents up to 2.3 wt% confirmed that BSS exhibits corrosion resistance similar to that of Type 304 stainless steel in environments present in nuclear reactors"". Corrosion rates for BSS containing 1.35 wt% boron in boiling 10% nitric acid have also been measured". The results were consistent with other stainless steel behavior with a rapid change in weight (passivation) within 48 hours and no further weight change. The maximum penetration was 0.09 mils. Corrosion tests of BSS with boron contents of 1.0 wt% and 1.75 wt%
| |
| exposed to 2000 PPM boric acid solutions at 154'F for six month durations have also been recently reported'~. The 154'F test temperature represents the maximum normal operating temperature in spent fuel pools. Various coupon configurations representing simple immersion, creviced, and galvanically-coupled conditions were included in these tests. The test showed essentially no detectable corrosion for all test conditions.
| |
| There are no significant changes to the mechanical properties of borated stainless steel due to exposure to the levels of irradiation experienced over the design life of the Ginna fuel storage racks".
| |
| 1.3.5 Structural Materials The principal structural materials are stainless steel meeting the following standards:
| |
| ~ ASTM A 240 for structure
| |
| ~ ASTM A 312 for welded pipes expanded to square tubes 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 25
| |
| | |
| ~ ASTM A 564 for bar of adjustable support
| |
| ~ ASTM A 479 for support legs.
| |
| ~ ASTM A 630 for threaded pins in support legs These materials, described further in Section 3, are of proven durability in spent fuel pools.
| |
| 1.4 SUPPLIER QUALIFICATIONAND EXPERIENCE 1.4.1 Team Qualifications The Team of Framatome Technologies, Inc. (FTI), Societe Atlantique de Techniques Avancees (ATEA), Framatome Cogema Fuels (FCF), and Peyla Consulting 2 Management Services, Inc.
| |
| (PCM) bring an impressive array of experience and resources to the Ginna re-racking project which ensures high quality rack design, fabrication, and installation. The technology and skills required for an overall successful project demands a Team with complimentary strengths.
| |
| FTI has demonstrated experience in the management of complex nuclear projects as a supplier of Nuclear Steam Supply Systems (NSSS) and service maintenance projects to the nuclear industry for over 30 years. The employees within the Integrated Nuclear Services Division have excelled in providing a wide range of management and maintenance services to the nuclear utility industry.
| |
| Now FTI's capabilities have been expanded through the new Framatome ownership by providing access to additional European resources and technologies.
| |
| ATEA, with Framatome, has been involved for more than 15 years in the design, manufacturing, licensing, and field erection of more than 3S,000 fuel storage cells. ATEA is equipped with specialized equipment and nuclear production areas to fabricate spent fuel racks. In the last MAANSHANproject, ATEA has shown its capability to manufacture more than 4300 cells with borated stainless steel as neutron poison absorber.
| |
| For the Ginna project, all fabrication and assembly will be performed by ATEA. The ATEA rack fabrication facility in Nantes, France consists of 2500 square meters with a 25 ton crane capability.
| |
| FCF has been providing nuclear fuel and fuel services to the domestic commercial nuclear industry for over 30 years. Included in this experience is the evaluation of high density fuel storage racks.
| |
| These evaluations included criticality, structural, thermal-hydraulic, and radiological analyses using NRC approved methods to demonstrate compliance with NRC requirements .
| |
| PCM will provide on-site management and coordination for the on-site project work. PCM's manager, David Peyla, has over twenty years of field experience in completing rack replacement services.
| |
| 1.4.2 Team Experience The Framatome Group, with a 1995 revenue of 3.6 billion dollars and 19,000 employees, is involved in four main industrial sectors:
| |
| Nuclear Engineering: nuclear power plant design, manufacturing, erection and maintenance and nuclear fuel services, 51-125 S768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 26
| |
| | |
| Mechanical Engineering: PWR heavy components, turbines and compressors, and precision components, Connectors for electrical industry and electronics, Computer services: computer aided design (CAD), structural analysis, and artificial intelligence.
| |
| In the nuclear field, Framatome is currently the primary nuclear power plant designer, manufacturer exporter in the world, with 60 PWR units delivered and five under construction. Framatome's
| |
| 'nd scope involves the design of all the main systems and components of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS), including fuel handling equipment and fuel storage racks. Therefore, Framatome has very strong teams specializing in nuclear physics, thermal-hydraulics, structural and seismic analysis, shielding and radiological analysis and has at its disposal the relevant computer codes for such calculations.
| |
| Framatome has been involved in the design, manufacturing, licensing, onsite mounting and testing of more than 38,000 fuel storage cells, of which more than 10,000 were high density cells with neutron absorber at sixteen units worldwide (see Table 1.4-1). In the Framatome Group organization, ATEA is responsible for rack design, fabrication and installation.
| |
| Since 1976, PCM worked in the Nuclear Industry performing maintenance, repair, retrofit and re-rack projects. Many of these projects were one of a kind or the first ever attempted. Responsibilities and positions have been varied and extensive. Dave Peyla served as a Diver, Foreman, Project Superintendent and Project Manager and Consultant performing this work and twenty three re-racking projects for utilities in the United States and Overseas.
| |
| Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Arkansas Nuclear One Vermont Yankee H.B. Robinson Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Indian Point -2 Surry Power Station Arkansas Nuclear One Pilgrim Nuclear Station Indian Point - 3 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Indian Point - 2 Oconee Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Duane Arnold Taiwan Power Co Salem Zion Nuclear Generating Station Davis Besse Fort Calhoun Brunswick Steam 4 Electric Salem Borated stainless steel has been used in spent fuel pool applications worldwide for over 20 years (see Table 1.4-2). A brief synopsis of this experience is shown below.
| |
| Foreign Experience - Borated stainless steel has been used in various applications in Europe for over 20 years. Some of these applications are proprietaiy; the user is generally not willingto provide specific information. However, information obtained from two European suppliers of borated 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 27
| |
| | |
| stainless steel, BOHLER Bleche GmbH and KRUPP Thyssen Nirosta GmbH, indicates they have not had any claims concerning the materials that they have supplied. All indications are that the users have been satisfied for up to 20 years with the material supplied.
| |
| Domestic Experience - Consolidated Edison Company installed spent fuel storage racks utilizing borated stainless steel as the neutron absorber in the Indian Point Unit 2 spent fuel pool in 1982. In 1990 these racks were removed from the pool in order to expand fuel storage by utilizing more densely packed racks. The racks were viewed during removal &om the spent fuel pool and showed negligible, ifany, corrosion; the overall appearance of the racks was good.
| |
| REFERENCES 1-1 N.R. Grant, "Corrosion of Boron Stainless Steel," Reactor Eng. Div. Quarterly Report, pp 57-60, April-June 1965, ANL 5601 1-2 W. Kermit Anderson and J. S. Theilacker, "Neutron Absorber Materials for Reactor Control," US Atomic Energy Commission, 1962 1-3 T.L. Hoffman and T.L. Adams, "Corrosion of Alloys in Various ICPP Decontaminating Solutions," Phillips Petroleum Co., Atomic Energy Division, April 14, 1961 1-4 R.J. Smith, G.W. Loomis, C. Paul Deltete, "Borated Stainless Steel Applications in Spent fuel Pool Environments," EPRI Report TR 100784, Project 2813-21, June 1992 1-5 S.E. Soliman and Baratta, D.L. Youchison, T.A. Balliet, "Neutron Effects on Borated Stainless Steel," Nuclear Technology, Vol. 96, Dec. 1991 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 28
| |
| | |
| Table 1.3-1 Number of Cells by Rack Type
| |
| ;:;::!'.,i'pg No:;of:,.'..,:;"',::;";;;
| |
| "":::::Type;:3"Rack"'- ':
| |
| ':,.4jNoi;'o':,Sp cri,!,':. i~",,",:,:.No".-'::,'of;'Fr'eshI'I:,: ::,::i::Damaged::FA";,::;
| |
| ~j';." I'':"."Nuiiib'e'r,;,':.:-:::.":.:'."'A '::l""': '',<Cells~:.'''.""': ". ;:"1A';:L'oca'tions,>:,''. ;,,':FA':L'ocatio'ri's",~'5 ":;'' '::Loca'tio'ns'''::"': ..
| |
| 70 35 0 3B 62 31 31 0 3C 50 25 25 0 3D 50 25 25 0 3E 62 29 28 TOTAL TYPE 3 294 145 144
| |
| :.'i~.Typ'e:2'Racket': I:.:.:;:.No'::of;.Sperit,'".-..~ I),': No'."',of:Fr'esh''5:i
| |
| ~;-':.;Dam'a'g'ed:FA;..':.'>j:;-:::,;.L"ocatio'ns'i!;,'::;
| |
| ~FA"":,Locatio'ns'j: :,:-:FA",::Loc'ations,'',i 2A 88 88 0 0 2B 99 0 0 TOTAL TYPE 2 187 187 0 0 TOTAL TYPE 2 A3 481 332
| |
| ,.'-!.':;:;:Typ'e '4IRack<,:,',:.;"::,':.";''-:,","Number,'of;:,":i'j m('<';No ,'',;:.:':Daiiiaged,::FA':',':
| |
| '.'Of''Spent:;;%<.''.':.FA'::L"
| |
| :.".::No'.".".'of,'Fresh~".:;<<';':.":I',:FA'~L'ocatioiis",i o"catio'ris'-':,'' j:;'.::i'::::Locatioii'sI,':::::,':',,.''::
| |
| 4A 10 10 0 0 4B 10 10 0 0 4C 10 10 0 0 4D 10 10 0 0 4E 10 10 0 0 4F 10 10 0 0 TOTAL 60 60 0 0 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 29
| |
| | |
| Table 1.3-2 Rack Dimensions, Weight, Supports (De'a'd';Weigh't'l,: ;;'",;:Niiirib'er':of:,::'-;
| |
| i'':Rack'No."j'; i-':;:;:~.".,":.;-."."IN-S,''Length'~:,:~;:'.:,:. ~)",:~P:.',.::E-'W.:Z "en'gth-:.,':)-.':i.':,'' ~"!"':(lo'ii'g:,tons)';.;:.';:; '.;supp o'rt;leg's''
| |
| 3A 1642 mm (64.6 in) 2345 mm (92.3 in) 8.8 12 3B 1642 mm (64.6 in) 2345 mm (92.3 in) 8.0 3C 1173 mm (46.2 in) 2345 mm (92.3 in) 6.3 3D 1173 mm (46.2 in) 2345 mm (92.3 in) 6.3 1642 mm (64.6 in) 2345 mm (92.3 in) 8.0 12
| |
| :Typ'e,':2,:;:::.".
| |
| '-'.,":,': i".De'a'd.';Weigh't':.i !!,:Nii'mber';;of;;::;
| |
| i':Ra'ck'..No!:,:; ;-.,:';:~) N 8,:L'eii'g'th"::.:':i'',';;:':;::i ,",":,:::"j<>E-',%:',Length'.':;:l..":.::;:,"..,:i :~~'~(lorig",,',to'ns)''-',;.'::::,: ","'sup'port'legsi, 2A 1729 mm (68.1 in) 2370 mm (93.3 in) 7.8 12 2B 1942 mm (76.5 in) 2370 mm (93.3 in) 8.8 16
| |
| ,':..':::;Typ'e."4I.,:-':,:
| |
| :.Ra'ck":No.'.,'''. :::,':,:'I:::.'.;':"-::E,-":W L''ength'.:
| |
| 4A 241 mm (9.5 in) 2138 mm (84.2 in) 4B 241 mm (9.5 in) 2138 mm (84.2 in) 4C 241 mm (9.5 in) 2138 mm (84.2 in) 4D 241 mm (9.5 in) 2138 mm (84.2 in) 4E 241 mm (9.5 in) 2138 mm (84.2 in) 4F 241 mm (9.5 in) 2138 mm (84.2 in) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 30
| |
| | |
| Table 1.3-3 Design Data for Region 1, Type 3 Racks (Fresh Fuel and Spent Fuel)
| |
| Cells
| |
| ~ Cells for Fresh Fuel (BSS cells)
| |
| Inner dimension 206.8 x 206.8 mm (8.14 x 8.14 in)
| |
| Height 4115 mm (162 in)
| |
| Material Borated Stainless Steel 304 B6
| |
| ~~hect Height 3770 mm (148.4 in)
| |
| Width 211 mm (8.3 in)
| |
| Thickness 2.5 mm (0.1 in)
| |
| Cells for Spent Fuel (BSS/SS cells)
| |
| Inner dimension 206.8 x 206.8 mm (8.14 x 8.14 in)
| |
| Height 4115 mm (162 in)
| |
| Material Borated Stainless Steel 304 B6 304 L
| |
| ~ledHeight 3700 mm (145.7 in)
| |
| Width 211 mm (8.3 in)
| |
| Thickness 2.5 mm (0.1 in)
| |
| ~
| |
| Pitch 234.5 mm (9.23'in)
| |
| ~ Base Plate Thickness 30 mm (1.2 in)
| |
| Material 304 L 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 31
| |
| | |
| Table 1.34 Design Data for Region 2, Type 2 Racks (Spent Fuel)
| |
| Cells SS cell Inner dimension 206.8 x 206.8 mm (8.14 x 8.14 in)
| |
| Height 4026 mm (158.5 in)
| |
| Thickness 2 mm (0.08 in)
| |
| Material 304 L BSS cell Inner dimension 206.8 x 206.8 mm ( 8.14 x 8.14 in)
| |
| Height 4026 mm (158.5 in)
| |
| Material Borated Stainless Steel 304 B6
| |
| ~ BSS sheet Height 3700 mm (145.7 in)
| |
| Width 213 mm (8.4 in)
| |
| Thickness 3 mm (0.12 in)
| |
| ~ Pitch 214 mm (8.43 in)
| |
| ~ Base plate Thickness 30 mm (1.2 in)
| |
| Material 304 L 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 32
| |
| | |
| Table 1.3-5 Design Data for Region 2, Type 4 Racks (Spent Fuel)
| |
| Cells Inner dimension 206.8 x 206.8 mm (8.14 x 8.14 in)
| |
| Height 4026 mm (158.5 in)
| |
| Thickness 2 mm (0.08 in) (SS material)
| |
| Materials 304L
| |
| ~ BSS sheet Width 208 mm (8.18 in)
| |
| Height 3770 mm (148.42 in)
| |
| Thickness 2.5 mm (0.1 in)
| |
| Material Borated Stainless Steel 304 B6
| |
| ~ Pitch 214 mm (8.43 in) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 33
| |
| | |
| Table 1.4-1 Framatome/ATRA Spent Fuel Racks i;5umbe'r',,of:,; IPoisori':Material I'.:~Ye'ar.',.'of:,.'':,
| |
| ::St'o'ra'ge".C'ell's .::: .::::::;:;.and::Pitch .:.;..; :'.:':i'e'sign'::..,' '''."::! '.;:.:,;: Year."os:""5'; ~t:::;L''ic'e'n'sed'.:,
| |
| OX :;'.,:-:,;~;;::Fabric'ation":;::,:;.:."
| |
| 'Custo'm'er'ATTENOM RAN 1 0
| |
| -'I ] BORAL 1984-1985 August 86 E.D.F.
| |
| CATTENOM - 2 ] 2520 (11.3 inches) 1983 1985 I CATTENOM - 3 ] 1986-1987 I CATTENOM - 4 ] 1989 I I
| |
| BELLEVILLE- 1 ] 1260 1985 BELLEVILLE- 2 ] 1985-1986 NOGENT-I ] 1260 1985 NOGENT-2 ] 1986 PENLY - I ] 1260 1987 PENLY - 2 ] 1989-1990 GOLFECH - I ] 1260 1988 I GOLFECH - 2 ] 1990-1991 I I
| |
| I PLhHL't CADMIUM 1988 I (11 inches) I CHOOZ-I ] 1224 1989 Sept. 90 I CHOOZ-2 ] 1990-1991 I I
| |
| CIVAUX- I ] 1224 1993-1994 I CIVAUX- 2 ] I 000 M GNPJVC PMHXS I GUANGDONG-I I GUANGDONG-2 ] 1380 1989 Jan. 88 I
| |
| ] 1990 I I 0 BORATED SS t P~Lt Region I: 11.1" Region 2: 9.0" 1991 TPC MAANSHANI I MAANSHAN2 2160 1993 1993 I 2160 1994 I BORATED SS 1995 I Region 2: 9.2" GINNA Region 3: 8.4" later in 480 1996 1997 in progress RG&E 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 34
| |
| | |
| -"""i";:,"::No<~<~:::i:;:':,;:!i;.::<.:::i::.':.:':'<'.."-''>,:CollIlt @~i<'':".:;:k~Y:.::::~'':<.,'N>~X':::NU~clcal:,''Fac<ili Austria Tullnerfeld 1978 2 Belgium Doel 3 PWR 3 Belgium Tihange 2 PWR Brazil Angra 2 PWR Under Constr.
| |
| 5 Chez Republic Temelin 1-2 VVER Under Constr.
| |
| 6 Chez Republic Dukovany 1-2-3-4 VVER 1985 - 1987 7 Chez Republic Mochovoce 1-2-3-4 VVER Under Constr.
| |
| 8 Finland Olkiluoto 1 BWR 1981 9 Finland Olkiluoto 2 BWR 1981 10 France La Hague PWR 1976 - 1991 11 Germany Karlsruhe FBR 12 Germany Stade PWR 13 Germany Wuerpassen PWR 14 Germany Brunsbuettel PWR 15 Germany Philippsburg 2 PWR 1980 16 Germany Neckarwestheim 1 PWR 1976 17 Germany Neckarwestheim 2 PWR 1989 18 Germany Grohnde (re-racking) BWR 1986 19 Germany Unterweser BWR 1977 20 Germany Grafenrheinfeld PWR 1982 21 Germany Grohnde PWR 1985 22 Germany Grundremmingen 2-B BWR 1984 23 Germany Grundermmingen 2-C PWR 1985 24 Germany Brokdorf PWR 1986 25 Germany Brokdorf (re-racking) PWR 1984 26 Germany Krummel FBR 1984 27 Germany Isar 1 PWR 1979 28 Germany Isar 2 BWR 1988 29 Germany Emsland PWR 30 Germany Biblis A/B PWR 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 35
| |
| | |
| i'",::':;,"';;:; .,'i'-'':,Country',i:,::.':::::::;::::::;:":;:.:!: ''.:.5 '::::.:;::,'::i:'-.Nuclear:.'Fa'cili ':!.''i!!:,:"::.:)kj(
| |
| 31 Hungary Paks 1 VVER 1985 32 Hungary Paks 2 VVER 1985 33 Hungary Paks 3 VVER 1985 34 Hungary Paks 4 VVER 1985 35 Spain Almaraz 1 PWR 1991 36 Spain Almaraz 2 PWR 1991 37'8 Spain Asco 1 PWR 1992 Spain Asco 2 PWR 1992 39 Spain Trillo 1 PWR 1985 40 Korea Kori 3 PWR 1992 41 Sweden CLAB interim spent fuel PWR 1990 storage pool Ec BWR 42 Taiwan Maanshan 1 PWR 1995 43 Taiwan Maanshan 2 PWR 1995 44 USA Indian Pt 2 PWR 1982 45 USA Indian Pt 3 PWR 1978 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 36
| |
| | |
| ~ 0 0 0 ~
| |
| rarararnrararararnrn rararnrrar1r1rararar1 r1r1r1rararrarnr1rara~ ger//g/~.Fr geJgeJgrjgrj gaga grjgJrg JegrJ grjgrJ grJ jrrjgrjgrJgagrJgrjgrJ grJg Jrgrjgjrg JrgagrJgrJg Jrg ji Y/Pr'. Ji/// i/ Y/'/ g Yi//
| |
| gP~/i girl/ /~Br g Jr'Pr'gPl~i Y/// g ////
| |
| ksglJHUURCHRag RSHVRQRRHRSQCSQ RRHQgasgkagasg QPSNCEHERQEEQa5 QahHHHHHuHU QPSHVHHHaa5%5 kagasgaagasLag asgasgaaLlgk4g asNESNPELsgasg g Eagkg gaggkkgag gkagkagpkgkagaa ggagggaagkagkg kagggggkaggag kagaagaagaagsag aagkaggagaagkag g4ghagksgaagllh gaasgQQRSQVsg8 QPsgkagkagkagg HFiHK~HKNH//;.:~KH~SHK;QKr'H~S/HYN EsgUg+CsHEEH ksgEIHQ HgasH asHaagglVagUg '////r' fr/'//g r/r'// /Irg p/rr, r/I/ </// /r// 'r///e ////J Y///g <iAg /'Yrg ////rg Y//r',g /rYig g gaagggkagaagg gggkaggagkagaa gaagaaggkagkagg g4/@ling/I'gPPgfir/ Aran.
| |
| gki //'gFwYi'gPlg/J'<i
| |
| //.'~/: ~
| |
| ggIJQUgL'QUQ UgaagQQUg4g UHUQHHVEHRsg ////r'r'.
| |
| QUHUHasQVSHH QUHHHVRHEEHEE QESHBQHHHHH HHUHuHL18uQ UHuLaQuQuH 8HQHUQVEHREH
| |
| ~
| |
| g~r/r//g%r/ggÃger
| |
| /iAAY/Y/gj Y/Y/ //'// Y//// jj/~>iryZg~/
| |
| Y///g/,Z .~i//.//.'////
| |
| Y/g'r//r/g//Y/g<%/'gYg<rrgr/r g/Yj'i//g/"rig~~)////.
| |
| Zg gkagkagkagkagg ggagkagggggka gggggkagkagg "MHL'8 8 8 4'8 .8 .HQHÃH ~ HQHHQ'CtHH gaag fagkggaagaggrrY/g'/r/r/'g/Y/'//!QY/ Y/g'/r/gg Y/g///r/'m=aaaamaamm:sac;aK::.a'.ia:;:;
| |
| 845-HHQ-HH 8 I"HMVHVQHHEH~H"QH BQUHUHHQa GUTE QBQCRRQ.EHE.HERQSSQPH QL'HL'QHHasHH QUHQQHQ8HU QRRHUHHQuQa5 gagggagggggg ggPsgPEQPsgasg asgPsgaagasgksg algasgNgfCQPcg gaagkaahmgESmla///rrkaY/r/';"r.;
| |
| gaagkagggakgg gaagkagkagkagka gkagkagggkggaa gagaagaagkaggagg/JJU~Yr=-=rr==r::==re=:=r25F~P L':L 8:48'HUH',,;. jg;,.jj,;;~/g','-gy',-
| |
| grig/'Y/g//:gg/yr.g Y/Y/
| |
| ..'" r: '.''////kaj j
| |
| E)gESQFgg'gaggag %%ghagE%ga%gfag %%QPg'ggkagaag aaaacDaa"m-mnCF-m-aiba-acQ'aa"m gPSHGPksgkagRC gUgasgksigflgEl gVsgasC5%%8%%5%5 QR~RHBQC'QEEHH Ha5HULIREHVSHPR a5HHVshtfaHQQH MEEHHgPEIQSSH EsgUHRSHEQHHg DHHHVCNksHLHVsg Esgasgf sgksgahI QNVH HDQRS 5 HHQ555"H5'"HEN'S''5 pkg Eagka++kagESgkg
| |
| 'a Ea Ea gkagLgaagREHEag ksgHHVllgPRQREH Ug Vagasgkagkal RSHRagULLHPRQ gggaagsagaagg gkagggfYgkagka algggggggglfg I I
| |
| nglmgagasafaa aigasaaaaE5glJg amugrEsakaarula BSHED HRHBH 8 HUH':8 CHHhHBHBHH raaar1rararatararara gra rarlar1raar, gejg JrgrjgrJgagrJg Jrg JgeJ g Jrgrjg Jg Jeg Jg Jgrjg Jgrjg j Ir1rlrararI1F1%1raaar1rhrrararara gageJg JrgerJg jrgrjrgag Jrg Jega 8'"'8"'"'8'8%%% .=4:,!
| |
| C9
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-1 Type 3 Rack - Perspective FRESH FUEL CELL SPENT FUEL CELI 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 38
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-2 Type 3 Rack - General Arrangement 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 39
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-3 Type 3 Rack - Detail of Base I
| |
| I I
| |
| ~ ."I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I I I I
| |
| I I I I I
| |
| ~ A I
| |
| I I I I I I I
| |
| . I i I
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 40
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-4 Type 3 Rack - Vertical Section C
| |
| C Pl CU 6 170 an (6.7')
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 41
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-5 Type3Rack- Top View BSS 2.5 w (9.1')
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iI ~ ~ ~ IIIII~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <sf ~
| |
| /
| |
| 234.5 Plf1
| |
| /
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 42
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-6 Type 3 Rack - Details of Connecting Tabs LJ SS 2 n~ (0,08')
| |
| I SPENT FUEL ASSEMBLY
| |
| ~a CO F RESH F UEL ASSEMBLY FRESH FUEL ASSEMBLY AJ SPENT FUEL ASSEMBLY TABS 180 nn HEIGHT BSS 2.5 nn (0.1')
| |
| (7.1')
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 43
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-7 Type 2 Rack- Details of Top 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 44
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-S Type 2 Rack - Perspective 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 45
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-9 Type 2 Rack- Detail of Base
| |
| <AV(
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 46
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-10 Type 2 Rack - Vertical Section 15m 206.8 mm 8'14" 6.8 m .14" I
| |
| c.t.c.2I1 I
| |
| 00 IA I
| |
| C) o I
| |
| I I'
| |
| 130 mm 5.12" O I
| |
| CO 00 00 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 47
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-11 Type 2 Rack - Top View SS CELL 2 nm (0.08')
| |
| BSS CELL 3 mm (o. u')
| |
| 115 Ply (48')
| |
| (~Z85')
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 48
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-12 Type 2 Rack - Detail of Connecting Tabs 2 mm (o.o8')
| |
| SPENT FUEL SPENT FUEL ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY E
| |
| E ~
| |
| E E
| |
| ~~
| |
| (n ~
| |
| SPENT FUEL SPENT FUEL ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY BSS 3 mm 2.5 mm (o. ~z')
| |
| tabs 1.5 mm thickness (o. >')
| |
| (0.06")
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 49
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-13 Type 4 Rack SS 2am(0.08')
| |
| BSS 2.J nn(0.1')
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 50
| |
| | |
| Figure 1.3-14 Type 4 Rack - Top View 214.12 mm [8.4S']
| |
| B.S.S thickness 2.50 mm [0.10" ]
| |
| CO D
| |
| O CO D
| |
| CV 2 mm [0.08 206.80 mm [8.14 ]
| |
| 2 mm [0.08' 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 51
| |
| | |
| 2.0 PRINCIPAL DESIGN CRITERjlA 2.1 General Design Criteria The nuclear fuel storage racks are required to have a minimum service life of 40 years in an environment that includes high radiation fields, continuous exposure to pure and borated water; must be designed to withstand severe accidents due to natural phenomenons (i.e., seismic, tornado missiles), and drop accidents associated with plant operations. The primary function of the racks is to insure subcriticality of the fresh and spent nuclear fuel for a variety of accident scenarios.
| |
| The racks are categorized as safety related products and are designed to comply with stringent licensing requirements of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC), Regulatory Guides; the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code),
| |
| Section III, Subsection NF; American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual of Steel Construction; various American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and industry standards; and meet other RG&E design specifications.
| |
| Four main areas (structural, criticality, thermal-hydraulics, and radiological) are examined and analyzed to meet the design criteria. Sections 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 describe in detail the particular design scenarios and the results of these analyses.
| |
| 2.2 Structural Criteria The storage racks are considered as seismic Class I components and are designed to meet the allowable stresses of the ASME Code, Section III, Subsections NF for Class 3 Component Supports, applicable Regulatory Guides, and Standard Review Plan (SRP) NUREG-0800.
| |
| A detailed stress analysis was performed to determine the resulting stresses for deadweight, thermal, seismic and other accident impact loads (i.e., dropped fuel, canisters, and other missiles). The seismic analysis includes effects due to both Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) loading conditions. Factors of Safety against gross sliding and overturning of the racks are in accordance with NUREG-0800, SRP, Section 3.S.5, II-S.
| |
| The spent fuel pool liner shall not permit leakage of the pool water, and the resulting concrete bearing loads shall meet the allowable concrete stresses of ACI 349-85. Impacts that are determined that could penetrate the liner shall be mitigated or prevented by RG&E by invoking the requirements of NUREG-0612, Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants. This may be accomplished by using load paths that would avoid the spent fuel pool area, or designing handling and lifting equipment to meet the requirements of 'Single-Failure Proof'andling Systems.
| |
| The structural analytical methodology and results are presented in Section 3.0.
| |
| 2.3 Criticality Criteria The criticality analysis of the storage racks demonstrates that both the &esh and spent fuel assemblies remain subcritical (k s 0.95) in either the normal or accident condition. Criticality control is maintained by geometrical spacing of the fuel assemblies, and the use of neutron absorption with fixed neutron poisons.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 52
| |
| | |
| The criticality analytical methodology and results are presented in Section 4.0. The analyses are performed using NRC-approved computer codes CASMO-3, and SCALE 4.2 (KENO-V.a).
| |
| 2.4 Thermal-Hydraulic Criteria Thermal-hydraulic analyses were performed to ensure that the spent fuel pool cooling system has adequate capacity to cool and maintain water and fuel assembly temperatures within the current licensing criteria given the added heat load of the larger number of spent fuel assemblies. The analyses were performed to the requirements in the following NRC documents:
| |
| SRP 9.1.3, uel
| |
| ~ OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications, dated April 14, 1978 and revised January 18, 1979.
| |
| The thermal-hydraulic analytical methodology and results are presented in Section 5.0.
| |
| 2.5 Radiological Criteria Reference oQ'site dose values for evaluating hypothetical accidents involving fission product releases are specified in 10 CFR Part 100 and are 25 rem to the whole body and 300 rem to the thyroid from iodine exposure. Both values are applicable to the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and the low population zone boundary (LPZ). Section 15.7.4. of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) specifies acceptance criteria of 25% of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines for postulated fuel handling accidents.
| |
| However, the Ginna Station was designed and built prior to the SRP and is not required to meet the SRP limits. A previous fuel handling accident analysis showed an offsite dose of 96 rem thyroid which has been previously accepted by the NRC as being "well within" 10 CFR Part 100 limits (see Section 6.1.1).
| |
| Occupational exposure dose limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20 and are further controlled by plant procedures. The recommended dose rate that shall not be exceeded in accessible spaces adjacent the spent fuel pool is given in ANSUANS 57.2 and is 2.5 mrem/hr to any persons occupying those spaces. The rate is specified for when the pool is at its design fuel inventory and at the minimum design water depth.
| |
| The radiological analytical methodology and results are presented in Section 6.0 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 53
| |
| | |
| 3.0 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION This section presents the structural evaluation to ensure that the Rochester Gas and Electric's Ginna Unit 1 Spent Fuel Storage System meets all applicable structural criteria to maintain a subcritical array for the spent fuel and to keep radiation exposure within federal limits. The analysis of the Spent Fuel Storage System demonstrates that the structure satisfies the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50. Results of the analysis show the design satisfies the ~
| |
| statutory requirements for licensing. The results also demonstrate the ruggedness of the spent fuel rack.design.
| |
| Current state-of-the-art methods are used in the structural analyses. The storage rack structural evaluation is based on a conservative interpretation of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code. The spent fuel pool evaluation is based on a conservative interpretation of the American Concrete Institute's Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures and American Institute of Steel Construction's Building Code. It is shown that the spent fuel system structures are robust and provide safe storage of spent fuel under any of the normal, upset or hypothetical accident conditions.
| |
| Section 3.2 summarizes the structural design criteria. Section 3.3 provides the structural design features of the Spent Fuel Storage Racks. Section 3.4 summarizes the materials of construction and the corresponding material properties. Section 3.5 summarizes the structural analysis. Specifically, section 3.5.3.3 summarizes the analytically determined minimum design factors for the major components.
| |
| 3.1 SCOPE The scope of this structural evaluation includes the RG&E's Ginna Unit 1 Spent Fuel Storage System. The structural evaluation includes the spent fuel storage racks and the floor and liner of the spent fuel pool. Structural evaluation of the storage racks include both the resident U.S. Tool and Die racks and the new ATEAracks. The U.S. Tool and Die racks hereafter are referred to as Racks 1 through 6. The new ATEA racks are referred to as Racks 7 through 13 or as 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E. The perimeter racks are referred to as Type 4 Racks.
| |
| The design of the new high density storage racks is such that it preserves the original licensing basis (NRC SER dated November 14, 1984), hereafter referred to as the 1985 licensing basis, for Racks 1 through 6, and for the spent fuel pool liner and pool concrete. The new ATEA storage racks are free standing racks and are supported on the pool floor only. The gaps between the racks, and those between the rack and the pool wall, are designed such that the new racks do not impose any additional loadings on the resident racks or on the pool wall. These conditions are verified throughout the analysis. The new racks are high density storage racks and are capable of storing additional fuel. The number of support legs are designed such that the new racks do not impose any higher loading on the pool liner or the pool concrete. This is also verified in the analysis. The seismic analysis is performed for both the resident and new racks. The 1985 licensing basis is preserved for all hypothetical accidental drop cases on the resident U.S. Tool and Die racks.
| |
| Therefore, the hypothetical accident evaluation is performed only on the new ATEA racks.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 SFP Re-racking Licensing Report
| |
| 'inna Page 54
| |
| | |
| 3.2 DESIGN CRITERIA 3.2.1 Applicable Codes and Standards This section outlines the applicable design codes, standards, specifications, regulations, general design criteria, regulatory guides, and other industry standards used in the Spent Fuel Storage System structural evaluation. The following flowchart provides an overview of the codes and standards applicable to the structural evaluation.
| |
| Structural Evaluation - Spent Fuel Storage Racks 10CFR50 General Design Criteria 1,2,4,5,61,62 Regulatory Guide 1.13 OT Position 1978/79 ANSI/ANS 57.2 SRP NUREG-0800 Regulatory Guides 3.5.1.4 1.29 3.7.1 1.60, 1.61 Lifting 3.7.3 1.92 NUREG-0612 3.8.4, Appendix D 1.117 3.8.5 1.124 9.1.2 1.142 Storage Racks - ASME Section III, NF, 1989 Pool Liner - AISC 1989 Pool Concrete - ACI 349-85 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 55
| |
| | |
| 10CFR50, General Design Criteria Relevant requirements for the Spent Fuel Storage System include:
| |
| General Design Criterion 1: Safety related structure should be designed, fabricated,... to quality standards commensurate with the importance of safety function to be performed.
| |
| General Design Criterion 2: Design ofthe safety related structures being capable to withstand the most severe natural phenomena such as tornado, earthquake,... and the appropriate combination of all loads.
| |
| General Design Criterion 4: Safety related structure being capable of withstanding the dynamic effects of equipment failure.
| |
| General Design Criterion 5: Relates to sharing of structure important to safety unless it can be shown that such sharing will not significantly impair their validity to perform their safety function.
| |
| General Design Criterion 61: Fuel storage capacity requirements for full core down load.
| |
| General Design Criterion 62: Prevention of criticality by a physical and geometric safe configuration.
| |
| USNRC "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications," dated April 14, 1978 and the modifications to this document dated January 18, 1979.
| |
| Regulatory Guides:
| |
| The following recommendations and guidance by the NRC Staff are used in the structural evaluation:
| |
| 1.13 Spent Fuel Storage Facilities Design Basis, Revision 1, December 1975 1.29 Seismic Design Classification, Revision 3, September 1978 1.60 Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, December 1973 1.61 Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 0, October 1973 1.92 Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis, Revision 1, February 1976 1.117 Tornado Design Classification, Revision 1, April 1978 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 56
| |
| | |
| 1.124 Service Limits and Loading Combinations for Class I Linear-Type Components Supports, Revision 1, January 1978 1.142 Safety-Related Concrete Structures for Nuclear Power Plants (Other than Reactor Vessels and Containments), Revision 1, October 1981 Standard Review Plan - NUREG-0800 3.5.1.4 Missile Generated by Natural Phenomena, Revision 2, July 1981 3.7 Seismic Design 3.7.1 Seismic Design Parameters, Revision 2, August 1989 3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis, Revision 2, August 1989 3.8.4 Other Seismic Category I Structures, Appendix D: Technical Position on Spent Fuel Pool Racks, Revision 1, July 1981 3.8.5 Foundations, Revision 1, July 1981 9.1.2 Spent Fuel Storage, Revision 3, July 1981 NUREG-0612 Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plant, July 1980 ANSI-57.2-1983 Design Requirements for Light Water Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Facilities at Nuclear Power Plants, approved Oct. 1983 Industry Standard ASME Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF, 1989 Edition 1989 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Section III, Pressure Vessel and Piping Code, Subsection NF - Rules for Construction ofNuclear Power Plant Component Supports.
| |
| ACI 349-85 Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute 1985.
| |
| AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 9th Edition 1989, American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, June 1989.
| |
| 3.2.2 Acceptance Criteria, Load Combinations and Stress Limits The structural design meets the basic requirements specified in 10 CFR 50 (General Design Criteria) and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.13, and can be summarized as:
| |
| The design protects the health and safety of the general public and personnel involved in spent fuel handling under normal, abnormal and accident conditions. In addition, the design of spent fuel storage racks and pool:
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 57
| |
| | |
| Maintains the capability to remove and insert fuel assemblies Prevents physical damage to the stored fuel assemblies Maintains the stored fuel in a eoolable geometry Maintains the stored fuel in a subcritical configuration Per requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.29, the spent fuel system structures are classified as "Seismic Category I" and are designed to remain functional under the effects of the SSE. The system is designated as a safety-related system. The spent fuel storage racks are designed and will be to conform to ASME Section III, Subsection NF for Class 3 component supports. All 'onstructed structural materials selected for the spent fuel storage racks are compatible with the fuel pool environment to minimize corrosion and galvanic effects.
| |
| All safety related structures conform to:
| |
| en ASME Code - Section III, Subsection NF, Class 3 Component Supports, 1989 Edition.
| |
| ~
| |
| Regulatory Guide 1.124
| |
| ~ AISC - 1989 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 9th Edition, June 1989.
| |
| ~ ACI 349 - 85 Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Structures, American Concrete Institute
| |
| ~
| |
| Regulatory Guide 1.142 Load Combinations The following section provides the load combinations considered in the structural analysis. These load combinations meet the requirements of Standard Review Plan 3.8.4, Appendix D.for Seismic Category I Structures. Where possible, load combinations were enveloped and compared with lower Acceptance Limits to reduce the number of load combinations to be analyzed. The analysis provides details on the enveloped cases considered, where applicable.
| |
| Design Factor A term of "Design Factor" is used to relate actual values with allowable values, given as a percentage. The form of the calculation is as follows:
| |
| Design Factor (%) =KAllowable - Actual) / Actual] x 100 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 58
| |
| | |
| Load Combinations - Storage Racks
| |
| 'na' cce tance
| |
| 'm'+L Level A service limits D+L+T, Level A service limits D+L+T,+E Level A service limits D+L+T,+E Level B service limits D+L+T,+Pf Level B service limits D+L+T,+E'+ Level D service limits L+ F~ The functional capability of the fuel racks should be demonstrated The abbreviations used here are:
| |
| D Dead loads and their related internal forces and moments L Live load, zero for storage racks since no moving objects in the rack E Load generated by the Operating Basis Earthquake E'oad generated by the Safe Shutdown Earthquake T, Thermal effects and load during normal operating or shutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady state condition T, Thermal effects at the highest temperature associated with the postulated abnormal conditions P, Upward force on the racks caused by postulated stuck fuel assembly F~ Force caused by the accidental drop of the heaviest load &om the maximum possible height Note: Provision of ASME Section III, Subsection NF-3251.2 is amended by the requirements of paragraphs c.2.3 and 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.124 entitled "Design Limits and Load Combinations for Class 1 Linear-Type Component Supports."
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 59
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ ' t 4 '
| |
| N~ ~ ~
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA This section provides the acceptance criteria used to qualify Spent Fuel System structures. To stay within the 1985 licensing basis, several self-imposed acceptance criteria are established and are also defined here. The acceptance criteria summarized here meet all the regulatory requirements and meets all the self-imposed requirements.
| |
| Acceptance Criteria - Storage Racks The storage racks are designed per the requirements of Subsection NF of the ASME Section III Code. Table 3.2-1 shows the Class 3 Component Support stress allowables for the structure. The structural evaluation is based on a conservative interpretation of the ASME B&PV Code. The design factors provided here are margins above the ASME Code. The Code has large built-in safety factors. Table 3.2-2 provides the stress allowables for 304L (ASTM A240 and ASTM A479) stainless steel material. This table is developed using criteria outlined in Table 3.2-1, and is provided as an example. For all other materials, the stress allowables are calculated where applicable.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 60
| |
| | |
| Table 3.2-1 Stress Acceptance Criteria - Storage Racks
| |
| ;:.'''.'.:Ser'v'ic'e'4-:""':"i F;"'"''::~"'::,"":::':,'.Servic'e'.'i'i:":,'::;~,""".::
| |
| Primary Membrane Stress o, 1.0 S 1.33 S Lower of 1.2 Sy or 0.7 Su Primary Membrane+ Bending 1.5 S 1.995 S Lowerof1.8 Syor 0)+Op SU
| |
| '.05 Range of Primary + Secondary Lower of Lower of Lower of Stress 2Sy or Su 2Sy or Su 2Sy or Su Bearing Average Sy Sy No Evaluation Large distance from Edge 1.5 Sy 1.5 Sy Required Pure Shear Average Primary Shear 0.6 S 0.6 S 0.42 Su Maximum Primary Shear 0.8 S 0.8 S 0.42 SU Weld Stress - Fillet Weld Weld metal 0.3 SU 0.4 Su 0.42 Su Base metal 0.4 Sy 0.532 Sy 0.42 SU Per ASME Section III, Subsection NF, SRP 3.8.4, 2 Reg Guide 1.124 where: S = Allowable stress value at temperature, from the applicable table of Appendix I Sy = Yield strength at temperature Su = Tensile strength at temperature Notes: Per sections of ASME Section III, Subsection NF and Appendix F:
| |
| Line 1: Per NF-3251, NF-3261 and F-1332 of ASME Section III Line 2: Per NF-3251, NF-3261 and F-1332 of ASME Section III Line 3: Per footnote 6 of Table NF-3523(b)-1 and conservative interpretation of ASME Section III Line 4: Per NF-3252.1, and F-1332.3 of ASME Section III Line 5: Per NF-3252.2, and F-1332.4 of ASME Section III Line 6: Per NF-3266, Table NF-3324.5(a)-1 of ASME Section III Deformations should preclude damage to the fuel assemblies. In addition to the stress acceptance, the structure is evaluated against stability (buckling).
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 61
| |
| | |
| NVREG-0612 (Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants), Section 5.1.6 Safety Design
| |
| /actor QK~eQ Redundant Lift Ultimate (Single-Failure Proof)
| |
| Non-redundant Lift 10 Ultimate Acceptance Criteria - Spent Fuel Pool Liner The spent fuel pool liner is designed in accordance with the AISC-1989 Code. The storage rack support pads are designed such that they do not rest on any liner weld seams. The support pads primarily transmit the rack loads as bearing loads on the liner.
| |
| The redesign only changes the floor bearing loads
| |
| ~
| |
| Bearing Allowable 0.9 F Per AISC Liner Fatigue Analysis per AISC, Appendix K II Acceptance Criteria - Spent Fuel Pool Concrete The spent fuel pool concrete is designed per requirements ACI 349-85. The storage racks, being free standing structures, primarily induce bearing loads on the concrete at support pad locations. The redesign only changes the floor bearing loads.
| |
| Bearing Allowable (I) (0.85 fg Per ACI 349, Section 10.15
| |
| ~ Demonstrate that there are no rack-to-wall impacts 3.3 STRUCTURAL DESIGN FEATURES The ATEA spent fuel rack design objective was to maximize the number of available fuel assembly storage cells while ensuring that all criticality, thermal-hydraulic, and structural requirements were met. Specific to these structural design features, the ATEA racks consist of three fundamental rack types, grouped as Types 2A-2B, 3A-3E, and 4. The rack modules are freestanding structures that minimize the loadings on the pool liner and floor, in that only friction loads and bearing loads are transmitted. In addition, rack structural loads are minimized by the compliance offered by the free-standing boundary condition. Rack modules are sized to ensure sufficient lateral gaps between modules and the pool wall such that no impacts are made during the faulted events.
| |
| The rack pedestals are positioned such that they are sufficiently removed from the existing pool liner leak chases, thus minimizing the effects of additional loads in these areas. The pedestals are also 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 63
| |
| | |
| sized and numbered to ensure a stable rack structure, thus minimizing tilting, and also to equally distribute and minimize the resulting bearing loads onto the pool liner and floor. The pedestals also provide threaded connections to ensure the overall rack module levelness during installation, thus minimizing any load eccentricities and imbalances. The pedestal and rack baseplate designs provide sufficient cutouts for fluid cooling while ensuring adequate structural strength. The ATEA baseplate thickness is greater than that of the resident racks. In addition, the entire rack foundation is designed with a gusset plate network tying the baseplate and pedestals throughout the rack module. The gusset plate network further strengthens the rack, increasing structural margins for the baseplate and pedestals.
| |
| Type 2 racks have a primary structural design whose features include cell junction weld tabs, which are used to physically connect the stainless steel structural cells axially along the cell length. These weld tabs laterally position the structural cells and provide a load path between these cells. The weld tabs are sized and numbered to ensure sufficient structural margins. The structural cells are also fabricated with welded stainless steel retainer plates located at the top and bottom of the cell. These plates ser ve to axially constrain the adjacent borated stainless steel (BSS) cells while providing a gap to accommodate any axial differential thermal expansion. The retainer plates also serve as a bearing surface through which loads are transmitted from structural cell to structural cell through the top and bottom nozzles of the fuel assembly within the BSS cell. The retainer plate welds are sized and numbered to ensure a sufficient structural margin for all loading cases, including a stuck fuel assembly.
| |
| Type 3 racks have a primary structural design whose features include a series of stainless steel "bands" located at discrete axial locations along the length of the BSS cells. These axial locations correspond to those of the fuel assembly spacer grids. The spacer grids are the primary lateral load interface for the fuel assembly in addition to the top and bottom nozzles. The band is assembled as two pieces fitting into mortice joints on the BSS plates and then welded to each other to form an integral band around the BSS cell. These bands serve as the load path through the BSS cell to the structural cells. The bands coupled with the rack-to-rack cell gaps ensure that only compressive loads and no bending loads are transmitted to the BSS plates. The type 3 racks also utilize the cell junction weld tabs, which are used to physically connect the stainless steel structural cells axially along the cell length. These weld tabs laterally position the structural cells and provide a load path between these cells, similar to type 2 racks. The weld tabs are sized and numbered to ensure sufficient structural margins.
| |
| Type 4 racks are special racks located on the periphery of the resident rack modules (type 1) to further increase storage capacity. These racks consist of 10 rack cells per module which are secured by two custom mounting fixtures located in the top of the outer cells of the adjacent resident racks.
| |
| Type 4 racks are also positioned on the pool floor using two pedestals, allowing it to be self-supporting and stable. For additional lateral constraint, tie bars fixtured to the bottom of two type 4 rack cells (adjacent to the pedestal cells) -interface with the diagonally adjacent type 1 rack cells.
| |
| The type 4 racks and corresponding mounting fixtures are designed and positioned to minimize rack displacement and maximize structural margins while ensuring that no impacts with the pool wall occur.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 64
| |
| | |
| 3.4 MATERIALSOF CONSTRUCTION General Standards This section addresses the general 'structural material'equirements of Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, Section 3.8.4, Appendix D in the design of the spent fuel storage racks. The internal and external environmental conditions of the storage pool were considered in the selection of the component materials. Allof the structural materials selected conform to the ASTM Specifications and meet the intent of ASME Section III, Subsection NF requirements. Any benefits of the structural strength of Boraflex and borated stainless steel are not considered in the structural analysis.
| |
| Table 3.4-1 summarizes the materials of construction for the spent fuel storage racks, spent fuel pool liner, and the spent fuel pool.
| |
| 3.4.1 Structural Materials Type 304L and 630 stainless steel materials were selected for the storage rack construction because of:
| |
| Corrosion resistance (low carbon content which minimizes the sensitization),
| |
| Strength, Fracture toughness, and ASME acceptability.
| |
| The 630 bolting material is selected for its high strength and resistance to stress corrosion cracking, even at temperature to 300', and under severe chloride and H,S environment. Galvanic reactions are not expected between the 304L and borated stainless steel, or between 304L and 630 austenitic stainless steel.
| |
| The resident U.S. Tool & Die storage racks and pool liner are fabricated from 304 stainless steel.
| |
| The spent fuel pool walls and floor are constructed using 3,000 psi minimum strength concrete - 28 days cured.
| |
| Tables 3.4-2 through 3.4-6 report the material properties used in the structural analyses.
| |
| 3.4.2 Non-Structural Materials Borated stainless steel and Boraflex are used as neutron absorber materials. They are considered non-structural materials in the structural analyses.
| |
| Borated Stainless Steel The borated stainless steel (BSS) is grade 304 B6/B7, Type B in accordance with ASTM-A887-89 and A-480.
| |
| Natural Boron (B10) is added to the austenitic stainless steel with a minimum content of 1.7 percent in weight and a carbon content less than or equal to 0.03%. The microstructure consists of an austenitic stainless steel matrix with fine, uniform dispersion of complex chromium borides.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 65
| |
| | |
| Borated stainless steels are used for neutron attenuation in spent fuel storage and transportation applications. BSS has been used in spent fuel storage pools since 1978. Currently, more than 4,000 metric tons of BSS are in use in spent fuel pools. BSS has been licensed in 13 countries including the U.S.A. for use in spent fuel pools. BSS has been licensed for use in spent fuel pools at Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3 and Millstone 2 in the U.S.A. For these applications, BSS was exposed to aqueous environments including boric acid, and these applications have proven the corrosion resistance of BSS. Borated stainless steel has an exceptional resistance to corrosion by electrolytic oxidation, or other chemical reactions in borated and pure water. 'ydridation, As compared to 304 type stainless steel, borated stainless steel has a higher strength but lower ductility and lower impact resistance. The coefficient of thermal expansion and density for borated stainless steel are very similar to 304L stainless steel (Table 3.4-7). BSS corrosion resistance is very similar to conventional austenitic stainless steel in a spent fuel pool environment. There are no significant changes to the mechanical properties of the borated stainless steel upon exposure to the levels of irradiation, over the design life of the fuel storage rack.
| |
| In the ATEA rack design, the borated stainless steel plate is a free standing member. The borated stainless steel is neither bent nor welded in the storage rack design. This willpreclude any cracking or thermal alteration ofthe metal. The borated stainless steel is not considered as a structural member in the structural analysis, and its contribution to the strength of the racks is neglected.
| |
| In summary, the neutron absorber material selected for the rack construction provide:
| |
| Homogeneous Boron in austenitic stainless steel matrix Corrosion resistance over the life of the racks High stability under irradiation (no blistering, no creep, ...)
| |
| No degradation, swelling or ballooning.
| |
| Boraflex Boraflex is used as a neutron absorber in the resident U.S. Tool & Die racks. The Boraflex is not considered as a structural member in the strength analysis. The analysis reflects only the weight of the Boraflex. Table 3.4-8 reports the material density used in the weight calculation.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 66
| |
| | |
| Table 3.4-1 Materials of Construction ATRA New Storage Racks Cell Wall ASTM - A240 Type 304L or ASTM - A312 Type 304L Base Support Plate ASTM - A240 Type 304L Support Pads ASTM - A479 Type 304L Perimeter Rack Connection ASTM - A240 Type 304 (Lower)
| |
| Bolts (Part of Support Pad) ASTM - A564 Type 630, Condition H1100 Weld Material Grade 308L in accordance with AWS AS-9 Neutron Absorber ASTM - A887-89, Type 304 B6/B7, Grade B Borated Stainless Steel Resident Storage Racks (US Tool &, Die Racks on Wachter's Base Support)
| |
| Rack Cell Wall ASTM - A240 Type 304 Cell Insert Wall ASTM - A240 Type 304 Filler ASTM - A240 Type 304 Base Support Assembly ASTM - A240 Type 304 Base Corner Support Shims ASTM - A240 Type 304 Boraflex 0.020 gm/cm'inimum B,o Hold Down Bolts Type 304 Stainless steel Spent Fuel Pool Liner ASTM-A240 Type 304 Concrete 3,000 psi minimum strength, 28 days cured Consolidated Fuel Fuel Can Wall ASTM A240 Type 304 Cell Divider ASTM A240 Type 304 Can Bottom ASTM A240 Type 304 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 67
| |
| | |
| Table 3 4-3 Material: 304 Stainless Steel Plate Material: 304 Stainless Steel Bar Spec: ASTM-A240, Type 304 Spec: ASTM-A479, Type 304 Composition 18Cr-8Ni Allowable Stress S - ksi 18.8 17.8 16.6 Minimum Yield Strength Sy - ksi 30 25 22.5 Minimum Ultimate Strength Su - ksi 75 75 71 66 Elastic Modulus E - x10'si 28.3 27.6 27.0 x 10 lb/in'0 Linear Thermal Expansion in/in/'F a-Mean coefficient going from 70' Density - 0.29 8.55 8.79 9.00 Source
| |
| | |
| ==References:==
| |
| | |
| Allowable Stress S from Table I-7.2 of ASME Section III, Appendix I Minimum Sy from Table I-2.2 of ASME Section III, Appendix I Minimum Su from Table I-3.2 of ASME Section III, Appendix I Linear Thermal Expansion a from Table I-5.0 of ASME Section III, Appendix I Elastic Modulus E from Table I-6.0 of ASME Section III, Appendix I 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 69
| |
| | |
| Table 3.4-4 Material: 630 Precipitation Hardened Steel Spec: ASTM-A564, Type 630 Bolting Material Nominal Composition: 17Cr-4¹i4Cu, Precipitation hardened steel Minimum temper temperature 1100'
| |
| :':;,.::,':::,,':,:Fi;300,::-'"::,'";;
| |
| .'::,;1'00:,,::,,,'"::,".:;~j:.'',:::,'.;,'::,;:,:.::;i200":":I::;:,:::::,:.;;:',."::
| |
| Allowable Stress S - ksi 28 28 28 Minimum Yield Strength - ksi 115 115 106.3 101.9 Minimum Ultimate Strength - ksi 140 140 140 140 Elastic Modulus - xl0'si 28.3 27.6 27.0 Linear Thermal Expansion a-x 10'n/in/'F 5.89 5.90 5.90 Mean coefficient going &om 70' Density - 0.29 lb/in'ource
| |
| | |
| ==References:==
| |
| | |
| Allowable Stress S from Table I-7.3 of ASME Section III, Appendix I Minimum Sy from Table I-2.1 of ASME Section III, Appendix I Minimum Su from Table I-3.1 of ASME Section III, Appendix I Linear Thermal Expansion u from Table I-5.0 of ASME Section III, Appendix I Elastic Modulus E from Table I-6.0 of ASME Section III, Appendix I 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 70
| |
| | |
| Table 3.4-5 Concrete 3,000 PSI Minimum Strength 28 days Cured Concrete Young's Modulus (psi) Note 1 3.122 x 10'.25 Poisson's Ratio Density (lb/ft') 150 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 5.5 x 10~
| |
| (in/in/'F)
| |
| Compressive Strength - fc (psi) 3,000 minimum Source: Ginna UFSAR, Table 3.8-20 (Reference 3.22)
| |
| Note 1: Per Section 8.5 of ACI 349-85 (Reference 3.20)
| |
| Table 3.4-6 Zircaloy-4 Tubing Material Modulus of Elasticity 12 x 10'b/in'@ 150' Source: Framatome Cogema Fuel Test Results Table 3.4-7 Borated Stainless Steel ASTM - A887-89, Grade 304 B6/B7, Type B Weight density and coef5cient of thermal expansion taken same as 304L stainless steel.
| |
| Note: This material is not used as a structural material in the structural analysis.
| |
| Source: EPRI Report ¹EPRI TR-100784, "Borated Stainless Steel Application in Spent Fuel Storage Racks," June 1992 (Reference 3.31) and ASME Code Case N-510-1 (Reference 3.43).
| |
| Table 3.4-8 Boraflex Spec: 0.020 gm/cm Minimum B,~
| |
| Specific Gravity 1.7 g/cc The Boraflex material is not to be used as a structural material in the structural analysis.
| |
| Source
| |
| | |
| ==Reference:==
| |
| Table A-2 of EPRI NP-6159, "An Assessment of Boraflex Performance in Spent-Nuclear-Fuel Storage Racks," December 1988 (Reference 3.30).
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 71
| |
| | |
| 3.5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS The RG8cE Ginna Unit 1 Spent Fuel Storage System structure is analyzed to meet the codes and standards specified in Section 3.2.1. This section covers the structural analysis of the storage racks, spent fuel pool and the pool liner.
| |
| The re-racking at Ginna utilizes high density, free-standing spent fuel storage racks to replace selected resident, low density racks. The racks are of four basic design variations; namely Type 1 Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4 racks. All racks are designed to store consolidated spent fuel canisters with a 2:1 consolidation ratio. The following sketch provides a general layout of the array of racks 'n the pool.
| |
| Rack 4D Rack 4E R ck 4F Rack 3A Rack 3B Rack 2 Rack 6
| |
| ¹10 ¹13 Rack 4
| |
| ¹2 ¹4 ¹6 Rack 3C Rack 3D
| |
| ¹12 Rack 3E Rack 2B ¹11
| |
| ¹8 Rack 1 Rack 3 Rack 5
| |
| ¹1 ¹3 ¹5 Rack 2A
| |
| ¹7 Rack 4A Rack 4B Rack 4C Storage Racks - Rack Locations And General Arrangement Section 3.5.1 presents the method used in generating the seismic input, the fuel assembly loading and various loads considered in the analysis. Section 3.5.2 presents the structural and seismic analysis methodology and assumptions. Section 3.5.3 presents analyses and results for normal (Level A), upset (Level B), faulted (Level D) and hypothetical accident loading conditions.
| |
| Finite element methods were used extensively to analyze loads, deformations and stresses in the structural components. Computer codes used for structural analysis are certified and benchmarked to known solutions. Section 3.5.2.4 provides a listing of computer programs used. The computer program, ANSYS, was used for a majority of these calculations.
| |
| Several mathematical models were used with features to represent the sliding and tipping of the racks and hydrodynamic coupling which can occur between fuel assemblies and rack cells, between racks, and between racks and reinforced concrete walls. These mathematical models account for differences in rack modules in the pool. Fuel loadings analyzed included all possible combinations, 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 72
| |
| | |
| loading conditions of empty, half-loaded, unconsolidated and consolidated fuel. Due to the fact that the racks are &ee to slide and tip, a nonlinear dynamic analysis was performed to evaluate seismic loadings. The analysis was a time history analysis, which permitted both sliding and tipping.
| |
| Section 3.5.2.3 provides detailed descriptions of the mathematical models. An overview ofthe main mathematical models is provided here.
| |
| 3-D Single Rack Dynamic Analysis Models These mathematical models are used for various sensitivity studies. Figure 3.5-31 provides a schematic of the 3-D single rack model. These evaluations reduce the number of discrete whole pool evaluations, thus making the analysis of the spent fuel pool racks more efficient. Section 3.5.2.7 presents the results of the rack stiffness sensitivity study. The results presented conclude that the seismic loadings and hence stresses are not sensitive to the rack stiffness. For this reason, it is concluded that structural testing is not required to verify stiffness calculations.
| |
| 3-D Whole Pool Multi-Rack Dynamic Analysis Model A three-dimensional whole pool multi-rack (WPMR) model (Figure 3.5-32) was used for the re-racking seismic and structural analysis. The racks in the model reflect the use of six racks currently in use at Ginna and the additional seven (7) new ATEA racks for a total of thirteen (13) racks in the spent fuel pool. The use of six additional perimeter racks (Type 4), which may be installed at a future time, is also addressed in analyzing several pool configurations. The seismic input is site-specific to the Ginna plant. Rack loads and displacements were determined from this analysis for all load cases.
| |
| 3-D Single Rack Plate Models These mathematical models were used for static stress, thermal, base plate and lifting analyses.
| |
| Figure 3.5-33 provides an isometric view of the 3-D Single Rack Plate Model.
| |
| Isolated Component Models Extensive use has been made of various isolated mathematical models for calculation of global or isolated stiffness, support tab stiffness and tab stresses, etc. Figures 3.5-34 and 3.5-35 provide an isometric view of type 2 and type 3 fuel cell finite element models with tabs respectively. Section 3.5.3.1.1.3 describes the isolated model for fuel-to-rack interface stiffness calculation. Section 3.5.3.1.2 describes the isolated mathematical model for the tab stresses.
| |
| 3.5.1 Loading Conditions 3.5.1.1 Overview FUEL ASSEMBLY LOADING The empty, half full and fully loaded racks were considered in the seismic analysis. The weight of 1450 pounds was used for a single fuel assembly. This weight envelopes all three fuel designs, namely W-standard, W-OFA, and Exxon. The 1450 pound fuel assembly weight includes the weight of control components. Two full rack loading conditions were analyzed. The first, referred to as unconsolidated, represents a rack filled with fuel assemblies. The second, referred to as consolidated, represents a rack filled with full consolidation canisters, each weighing 2323 pounds.
| |
| The half-full condition considered is a rack which is filled with fuel assemblies in one half and 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 73
| |
| | |
| empty in the other half, so that the worst case eccentricity would exist. The empty rack condition considered is a rack with no fuel assemblies or consolidation canisters.
| |
| DEAD WEIGHT The dead weight loading includes: 1) empty storage racks, 2) racks fully loaded with fuel assemblies,
| |
| : 3) racks fully loaded with the consolidated canisters, and 4) racks partially loaded with a mixture of fuel assemblies and consolidated canisters. The results presented for seismic loadings include the effect of dead weight loadings. Section 3.5.3.1.5 provides a summary of the support pad loads which includes the dead weight loads.
| |
| LIVELOADS There are no live loads on the storage racks. For this reason, all live loads are zero in the load combination considered.
| |
| SEISMIC LOAD For the RGB Ginna Unit 1, the ground seismic response is 0.08 g for OBE and 0.2 g SSE (Ginna UFSAR, Section 3.7.1.2). The spent fuel pool is built on top of hard rock. Therefore, the ground response spectra are also applicable to the pool foundation. The shape of response spectra is per U.S.
| |
| NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60.
| |
| Synthetic Time History Four sets of statistically independent synthetic acceleration time histories were generated for 2%
| |
| damping for OBE and 4% damping for SSE conditions with each set containing horizontal and vertical acceleration time histories. The most current version of the computer program SIMQKE was used to generate synthetic seismic time histories.
| |
| It was demonstrated that each of the generated time histories was statistically independent from all ofthe others. In order to prove statistical independence, the normalized cross-correlation coefficient between any two sets is less than 0.1 (Section N-1213.1 of ASME Section III, Reference 3.19). The largest coefficient was less than 0.1. The time history was based on a time step of 0.01 seconds.
| |
| The synthetic time histories used had a duration of 20 seconds, and the three orthogonal components of each set were simultaneously applied in the rack time history seismic analyses.
| |
| The floor response spectra were regenerated from 1.1 times the average of all four developed time histories. The regenerated floor response spectra are found to match very well throughout the
| |
| &equency range of the Criteria Floor Response Spectra to meet the requirements specified in SRP 3.7.1 of NUREG-0800, Reference 3.2. The specified OBE and SSE response spectra are per Ginna UFSAR, Section 3.7.1.2. The comparison of the calculated and the Ginna specific SSE response spectra are shown in Figures 3.5-1 through 3.5-6.
| |
| Four SSE and OBE time histories were used in an analysis of the Rack 8 (Rack 2B). The parametric study was based upon a friction coefficient of 0.8, which produced the maximum loads. For this study, several parameters were examined, such as maximum rack forces and moments, support leg loads, and fuel to rack impact loads. From the comparison, it was found that using a factor on a single time history would envelop the other three. Section 3.5.2.6 presents the determination of the 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 74
| |
| | |
| "single" OBE and "single" SSE time histories and associated factors. To simplify calculations, the remaining analyses were based on single OBE and single SSE time histories.
| |
| From the results of the four different time histories upon the single rack model, factors were applied to selected single OBE and SSE forces and moments for the stress analysis calculations in order to cover all possibilities. The four OBE's indicated that a factor of 1.12 applied to the OBE-4 loads would completely envelop all four of the generated OBE loads. The four SSE's indicated that a factor of 1.20 applied to the SSE-1 loads would completely envelop all four of the generated SSE loads. These factors used were 1.12 and 1.20 for OBE and SSE, respectively.
| |
| THERMALLOADS The conditions Ta and To cause local thermal stresses to be produced.
| |
| Two cases of thermal effects were considered. First, an isolated storage location containing a fuel assembly was considered, in which it was assumed that the fuel assembly is generating heat at the maximum postulated rate. The surrounding storage locations were assumed empty. The heated water was assumed to make contact with the inside of the storage walls, thereby producing the maximum possible temperature difference, To, between the adjacent cells. In the second case, it was assumed that there is a loss of cooling such that the entire rack expands, setting up shear forces in the support legs which are assumed to be held &om sliding by the horizontal friction force between the support legs bearing pad and pool floor liner, see Section 3.5.3.1.9.
| |
| Single Hot Cell (To)
| |
| The worst situation was assumed to exist when an isolated storage location has a fuel assembly which is generating heat at the maximum postulated rate. The surrounding storage location is assumed to contain no fuel. The heated water makes unobstructed contact with the inside of the storage walls, thereby producing the maximum possible temperature difference between the adjacent cells. The sum of primary plus secondary stresses is limited to the lesser of two times the material yield strength, 2 Sy, and ultimate strength, Su at the design temperature.
| |
| Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling (Ta)
| |
| This thermal condition is produced when the pool water bulk temperature increases to 180' due to loss of artificial cooling. The pool liner temperature is kept the same as the normal operating temperature to generate conservative stresses in the rack.
| |
| FATIGUE ANALYSIS The peak stress range in the rack structure and the pool liner due to the cyclic loading was evaluated against fatigue criteria. For purposes of evaluating fatigue compliance, one SSE and five OBE events were used. It was demonstrated, by analysis, that the Cumulative Usage Factor in accordance with the procedures of NB 3222.4 (Reference 3.19) did not exceed 1.0 for storage racks. The pool liner fatigue strength was evaluated per Part 5, Appendix K of the AISC Code - 9th edition. The analysis is contained in Section 3.5.3.1.11.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 75
| |
| | |
| STUCK FUEL ASSEMBLY - UPLIFT FORCE The ability of the racks to withstand a vertical or inclined (at 45') force of 2000 pounds applied at any point without damaging the racks as to violate the sub-criticality criteria (K,ir less than 0.95) for the stored fuel was demonstrated by analysis. The analysis is contained in Section 3.5.3.1.18.
| |
| SLOSHING EFFECTS The effect of sloshing of the pool water during the seismic event on the rack motion is negligible, as demonstrated by classical methods in Section 3.5.3.1.13. The hydrodynamic pressures from sloshing of the pool surface water have no effect upon the racks. The sloshing water rises and lowers the ends of the pool by about 1 ft under OBE conditions and 3 ft under SSE. The effect of this and
| |
| 't the resulting changes in pressure are minimal.
| |
| HYPOTHETICALACCIDENT DROPS The major hypothetical accident conditions addressed in Section 3.5.3.2 are:
| |
| a) Fuel assembly drop during fuel handling in the spent fuel pool b) Spent fuel pool canal gate drop c) Spent fuel pool storage rack drop d) Tornado missile impact e) Spent fuel cask drop.
| |
| The straight deep drop cases required an exactitude, (i.e., falls through cell with no contact), which has a very low probability of occurring. Nevertheless, the consequences of such an accident were examined. While damage to the fuel rack bottom plate or support leg could be expected, no damage would occur to the spent fuel pool floor.
| |
| The shallow drop was examined and it was found that with a ductility factor less than 20 and deformation less than one inch, the distortion of the cells would be confined to the portion of cells above the borated stainless steel, and hence, would not affect the K factor used in the criticality analysis.
| |
| The conservatism used in the mechanical accident analyses for various drops indicated that minor distortion of the rack is limited to the vicinity of the impact area. There is no gross deformation of the rack away from the impact area.
| |
| Consolidated fuel, the pool canal gate, storage racks and spent fuel shipping casks were considered heavy loads per NUREG-0612. There will be administrative control for movement of these hardware in the spent fuel pool area. Also they will be lifted using a single-failure proof crane and a single-failure proof lifting system. Handling of these hardware in the spent fuel pool area will be performed in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-0612 with regard to limiting the chance of unacceptable heavy load drop. Reference 3.23, NRC Staff safety evaluation report, provides exclusion of heavy load drops meeting these criteria.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 76
| |
| | |
| 3.5.1.2 Seismic Input Compliance This section demonstrates compliance of RG&E's Ginna spent fuel storage seismic analysis time histories input with:
| |
| a) U.S. NRC Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61.
| |
| b) Standard Review Plan - NUREG-0800, Section 3.7.1., "Seismic Design Parameters" requirement, and c) ASME Code, Appendix N, Sections N-1212.2 and N-1213.1, 1989 edition.
| |
| Design Response Spectra References 3.2 and 3. 10 provide criteria for design floor response spectra in the three orthogonal directions as a function of the fundamental frequency for Operational Basis Earthquake (OBE).
| |
| Per reference 3.10, the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) ground response spectra is 0.20 G's (horizontal) and 0.133 G's (vertical), while the OBE ground spectra is 0.08 G's for horizontal and 0.053 G's for vertical motion components. Per reference 3.3, structural damping values for welded steel structures are taken as 2% and 4% (percent of critical damping) for OBE and SSE respectively. These spectrum curves were used for the seismic analysis of all racks in the pool.
| |
| The numerical values of accelerations for the RG&E Ginna Unit 1 spent fuel pool specified ground response spectra are given in Tables 3.5-1 through 3.5-6. These acceleration values are consistent with the U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 requirements.
| |
| Synthetic Time Histories Per Reference 3.2, Paragraph 1 "Design ground Motion", Option 2 "Multiple Time Histories" is chosen as an analysis basis. Per same reference, acceptance criteria for the Option 2 requires a minimum of four independently generated time histories. Therefore, four sets of statistically independent synthetic acceleration time histories were generated assuming 2% damping for OBE and 4% damping for SSE conditions, each set containing horizontal and vertical acceleration time histories. Averages of the calculated response spectra with an assigned factor of 1.1 envelop each design spectra ground motion component, as shown in Figures 3.5-1 through 3.5-6. Total seismic activity time duration was taken to be 20 seconds. Reference 3.19, Section N-1212.2 "Duration of Time History" suggests duration time larger than 6 seconds for strong seismic motion.
| |
| Reference 3.4, Section II "Acceptance Criteria", paragraph 1-b "Design Time History" requires a total time duration between 10 and 25 seconds. Thus, both requirements are met with a 20 seconds time history duration. All time histories were based on a 0.01 second time step.
| |
| Plots of the developed acceleration time histories are given in Figures 3.5-7 through 3.5-30.
| |
| Time Histories Independence Per Reference 3.19, Section N-1213.1 "Time Phase Relationship", all artificially generated time histories met cross-correlation limitrequirement (maximum correlation coefficient per time history pair of 0.16 or 16%). It was demonstrated that each of the generated time histories, was statistically independent from all of the others, since a normalized cross-correlation coefficient between any two sets was less than 0.10 (Reference 3.43). The results of this analysis for the four sets of synthetic SSE and OBE time histories are given in Tables 3.5-7 and 3.5-8, respectively.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 77
| |
| | |
| Multiple Time History Inputs Three orthogonal components of each synthetic time history set were simultaneously applied in all three directions.
| |
| Seismic runs were made for both SSE and OBE conditions, with a single time history set chosen for each condition (one out of four) for all of the 3D whole pool multi-rack analyses. The chosen time history set was used in conjunction with load factors to envelop the loads and displacements of all four time history sets. These factors are 1.20, for SSE, using time history set number 1, and 1.12 for OBE, using time history set number 4. Section 3.5.2.6. covers Time History Factor
| |
| 'etermination.
| |
| Synthetic Time Histories Generation The artificial time history generation program SMQKE was used to obtain all sets of acceleration time histories.
| |
| Table 3.5-1
| |
| ;::Displac'e."..'::(iri j::;-':
| |
| 33 [Hz] 9 [Hz] 2.5[Hz] 0.25[Hz] 0.25 [Hz]
| |
| 0.5 1.00 4.96 5.95 0.736 3.2 1.00 3.54 4.25 0.575 2.5 4 (*) 1.000 2.84 3.40 0.496 2.159 1.00 2.61 3.13 0.471 2.05 1.00 2.27 2.72 0.432 1.88 10 1.00 1.9 2.28 0.391 1 ~ 7
| |
| (*) logarithmic interpolation using values for 2 and 5 % critical damping Table 3.5-2
| |
| '.D'am'ping:,:''::-':%,",,:: ":Disp1a''c.':!':,fiiig.'.
| |
| 33 [Hz] 9 [Hz] 2.5 [Hz] 0. 25 [Hz] 0.25 [Hz]
| |
| 0.5 0.2 0.992 1.19 0.1471 0. 64 0.2 0.708 0.85 0.1149 0.5 4 (*) 0.2 0.5673 0.6806 0.0993 0.4319 0.2 0.522 0. 626 0.0943 0.41 0.2 0.454 0.544 0. 0864 0. 376 10 0.2 0.38 0.456 0.0782 0.34 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 78
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-3
| |
| -'.;:Damping'.,:''.:%:.,"'',
| |
| G3 [Hz] 9 [Hz] 2.5[Hz] 0.25[Hz] 0.25 [Hz]
| |
| 0.5 0.08 0.3968 0.4760 0.0588 0.256 0.08 0.2832 0.3400 0.0460 0.2 4 (*) 0.080 0.2269 0.2720 0 '397 0.1728 0.08 0.2088 0.2504 0.0377 0.164 0.08 0.1816 0. 2176 0.0346 0.1504 10 0.08 0.1520 0.1824 0.0313 0.136 Table 3.54
| |
| ;:Dampirig '%"';I;:.; 'Displiic;;.':firiJ:,.';:
| |
| 33 [Hz] 9 [Hz] 2.5[Hz] 0.25[Hz] 0.25[Hz]
| |
| 0.5 4.96 5.67 0.4896 2.13 3.54 4.05 0.3839 1.67 4 (*) 2.84 3.24 0.3317 1.443 2.61 2.98 0.3149 1.37 2.27 2.59 0.2874 1.25 10 1.9 2.17 0.2598 1.13
| |
| (*) logarithmic interpolation using values for 2 and 5 % critical damping Table 3.5-5 33 [Hz] 9 [Hz] 2.5 [Hz] 0.25[Hz] 0.25 [Hz]
| |
| 0.5 0.1333 0.6613 0.7560 0.0653 0.2840 0.1333 0.4720 0.5400 0.0512 0.2227 4 (*) 0.1333 0.3782 0.4321 0.0442 0.1924 0.1333 0.3480 0.3973 0.0420 0.1827 0.1333 0.3027 0.3453 0.0383 0. 1667 10 0.1333 0.2533 0.2893 0.0346 0.1507 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 79
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-6
| |
| ';DEs'ilac;:l'(iiiJ,.::;
| |
| 33 [Hz] 9 [Hz] 2.5[Hz] 0.25[Hz] 0.25 [Hz]
| |
| 0.5 0.0533 0.2645 0.3024 0.0261 0.1136 0.0533 0.1888 0.2160 0.0205 0.0891 4 (*) 0.0533 0.1513 0.1728 0.0177 0.0770 0.0533 0.1392 0.1589 0.0168 0.0731 0.0533 0.1211 0.1381 0.0153 0.0667 10 0.0533 0.1013 0.1157 0.0139 0.0000 Table 3.5-7 Cross-Correlation Factors for SSK Time Histories X-axes: Y-axes: 2-axes:
| |
| xl to x2 -0.0062 yl to y2 -0.0471 zl to z2 +0.0509 xl to x3 -0.0288 yl to y3 +0.0899 zl to z3 -0.0481 xl to x4 -0.0664 yl to y4 -0.0608 zl to z4 +0.0087 x2 to x3 -0.0548 y2 to y3 +0.0164 z2 to z3 +0.0166 x2 to x4 +0.0459 y2 to y4 +0.0189 z2 to z4 +0.0122 x3 to x4 +0.0097 y3 to y4 -0.0004 z3 to z4 +0.0357 X-Y axes: X-2 axes: Y-2 axes:
| |
| xl to yl +0.0205 yl to zl +0.0573 xl to zl +0.0480 xl to y2 -0.0194 yl to z2 +0.0213 xl to z2 -0.0398 xl to y3 +0.0505 yl to z3 +0.0055 xl to z3 -0.0523 xl to y4 -0.0214 yl to z4 +0.0236 xl to z4 -0.0597 x2 to yl -0.0344 y2 to zl +0.0350 x2 to zl +0.0247 x2 to y2 -0.0049 y2 to z2 -0.0974 x2 to z2 -0.0591 x2 to y3 -0.0266 y2 to z3 -0.0090 x2 to z3 +0.0096 x2 to y4 +0.0218 y2 to z4 -0.0573 x2 to z4 -0.0013 x3 to yl +0.0032 y3 to zl -0.0203 x3 to zl -0.0149 x3 to y2 +0.0522 y3 to z2 -0.0414 x3 to z2 -0.0277 x3 to y3 +0.0033 y3 to z3 -0.0542 x3 to z3 -0.0422 x3 to y4 -0.0639 y3 to z4 +0.0220 x3 to z4 +0.0835 x4 to yl -0.0054 y4 to zl +0.0133 x4 to zl +0.0705 x4 to y2 -0.0414 y4 to z2 -0.0282 x4 to z2 -0.0016 x4 to y3 -0.0206 y4 to z3 -0.0146 x4 to z3 +0.0171 x4 to y4 -0.0152 y4 to z4 +0.0185 x4 to z4 +0.0327 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 80
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-8 Cross-Correlation Factors for OBE Time Histories X-axes: Y-axes: 2-axes:
| |
| xl to x2 -0.0294 yl to y2 -0.0066 zl to z2 +0.0128 xl to x3 +0..0605 yl to y3 +0.0791 zl to z3 -0 '163 xl to x4 -0.0985 yl to y4 +0.0236 zl to z4 -0.0679 x2 to x3 +0.0345 y2 to y3 +0.0173 z2 to z3 +0.0040 x2 to x4 -0 '160 y2 to y4 +0.0114 z2 to z4 -0.0112 x3 to x4 -0.0268 y3 to y4 +0.0473 z3 to z4 +0.0429 X-Y axes: X-2 axes: Y-2 axes:
| |
| xl to yl +0.0120 yl to zl -0.0856 xl to zl +0 0240
| |
| ~
| |
| xl to y2 -0.0241 yl to z2 +0.0222 xl to z2 +0.0570 xl to y3 +0.0435 yl to z3 -0.0159 xl to z3 +0.0605 xl to y4 -0.0360 yl to z4 -0.0187 xl to z4 +0.0121 x2 to yl -0.0140 y2 to zl +0.0219 x2 to zl +0.0012 x2 to y2 +0 0380
| |
| ~ y2 to z2 +0.0028 x2 to z2 +0.0270 x2 to y3 -0.0019 y2 to z3 +0.0530 x2 to z3 -0.0206 x2 to y4 +0.0144 y2 to z4 +0.0536 x2 to z4 -0.0418 x3 to yl +0.0029 y3 to zl +0.0478 x3 to zl +0.0121 x3 to y2 +0.0449 y3 to z2 +0.0186 x3 to z2 +0.0727 x3 to y3 -0.0202 y3 to z3 +0.0271 x3 to z3 -0 '543 x3 to y4 +0.0234 y3 to z4 +0.0046 x3 to z4 +0.0278 x4 to yl +0.0063 y4 to zl +0.0331 x4 to zl -0.0246 x4 to y2 +0.0234 y4 to z2 +0.0296 x4 to z2 +0.0186 x4 to y3 +0.0565 y4 to z3 -0.0310 x4 to z3 +0.0237 x4 to y4 -0.0065 y4 to z4 +0.0134 x4 to z4 -0.0223 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 81
| |
| | |
| Q tA g
| |
| M Ch 00 GINNA-SSE Horizontal X-Ave.of 4 TH's damping = 4% (factored by I
| |
| O 9 3. 30)
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| pH I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| -r I
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| L 1 1 1 I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| Y ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| -r
| |
| ~
| |
| r 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 1 I
| |
| I r 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1 J
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 I
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| L 1
| |
| ~
| |
| I J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| I I I I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ I ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 1 1 1 'P 'I I' r I'
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 'Y B ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| r 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| G'7 1 1 w"r
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'Y ~ ~
| |
| 1 I' --r r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| '1 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| PD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 6
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ld ~
| |
| 1 1 I ~ I K ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| C I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I I I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 0
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
| |
| 1 1
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| I'
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| '1
| |
| ~
| |
| r 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I 8 ~~ '
| |
| I I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| P r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 8
| |
| ~ ~ I I ~ ~
| |
| I ~ I I ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| D ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| D
| |
| ~
| |
| I ~ ~ I I I I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I
| |
| ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
| |
| x 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 r- r 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| (0 ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I I ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I I ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ I
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| I I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.1 10 100 Natural f [Hz]
| |
| | |
| Q CA g M Lll M Ch OO GINNA-SSE Horizontal Y-Avg.of 4 TH's (N damping = 4% (factored by 3.30)
| |
| I O
| |
| B tA Vl
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| QO I ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| t F
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| '1 Y Y
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| a
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| F
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 Y Y
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| F' I'
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| Y r c C F
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ I I L
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| Ad~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| L
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| L
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| II.
| |
| ~
| |
| F L
| |
| ~
| |
| L
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| OCI
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
| |
| ~a F
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| Y 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| F'
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| F ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| F C I' F
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| Y
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I a ~
| |
| OQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| --F ~
| |
| Y
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 'Y ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| Q 1 F F' ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| F
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 A ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| O (9 L
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| IL
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I F
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| L A L
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| L
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| F
| |
| ~
| |
| C4
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
| |
| 0 F Y Y
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 Y Y
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| F
| |
| ~
| |
| 'Y F
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I CCI
| |
| ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 8 '
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ I I
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| I I
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I I
| |
| I'
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 8 I I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~, ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I CD O ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 't5 O ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ O
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I x I' Y
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| F 1 I
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| '1 I
| |
| Y ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| F
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| F
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| M
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| (0 ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I I I I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I o~
| |
| ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| M
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| M
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 0.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.1 M 10 100 Natural f [Hz] C4
| |
| &a
| |
| | |
| GINNA-SSE Vertical Z-Avg.of 4 TH's damping = 4% (factored by 3.10)
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 'I '1 'I~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 '1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| P '
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| '1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P ~
| |
| Ph ~ 1 1 ~ ' e ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| P e 1 ~ ~ P
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| p
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~ YY
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| 'I~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| I' CY
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r 'vY
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I.
| |
| ~
| |
| i ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| e
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I J
| |
| ~ ~ I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I.
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~
| |
| d.~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| 'h
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P ~ I P ~ ~ ~
| |
| 'h
| |
| ~
| |
| P P
| |
| ~ I S
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| rv
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| Y 1
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| CW
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| 'i~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| Y~ ~ ~
| |
| 'V Y
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| i YY
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| Q ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'I ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ' P P 'I P ~ 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0 ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| e
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| h4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 0.1 4 I
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| '1 '1 I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| 8 I' 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I'V
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| C '1
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~"
| |
| r ~ ~ ~
| |
| I 1
| |
| ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| C P
| |
| r-r
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| Q ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P h
| |
| ~
| |
| e
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ h
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| dJ
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| '4 ~ I ~ 4
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| Y Y 'vI 'vI
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| x
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| '1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r 'i
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'i
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| I'
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| S
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J ~ ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| J J 1 ~~ ~ J
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I, I I I ~ I ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
| |
| 'I~
| |
| Y
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'V
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'V Y ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| rv
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'P 'i
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| YYI
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.01
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.1 10 100 Natural f [Hz]
| |
| | |
| Q M
| |
| "5 Ch OO GINNA-OBE Horizontal X-Avg.of 4 TH's I
| |
| O damping = 2 k {factored by 3.10)
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| pR P
| |
| ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P ~ 'I~ P '
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P P '
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~ ~
| |
| ~ h ~
| |
| ~
| |
| - r Y1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1 'P~
| |
| Y
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 'V1 ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| f
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| L ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P P 'I~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P '
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 ~ J ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ I 4 ~ J ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| rv
| |
| ~
| |
| VJ r r ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 r I' v r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| Pl
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I f
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| '8 PD Q
| |
| 6 ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 4
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| C ~ L d
| |
| ~
| |
| A~
| |
| f A ~ ~
| |
| L
| |
| ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| L f ~ ~
| |
| lff
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| e 01 P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| Ph
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I I
| |
| J
| |
| 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~~ I ~
| |
| Q 1 f 'I Y 'V
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| r 'V~
| |
| Y
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 'V 1~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0 1 r rv
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 r r ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| Y 'P 1~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'Y~
| |
| ~
| |
| f
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J I ~ J ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ' P
| |
| ~
| |
| P P ~ '
| |
| P P
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ h
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 'h '
| |
| ~
| |
| P ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| ~ h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| L J
| |
| ~
| |
| L
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| JI
| |
| ~
| |
| A 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| f
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~I
| |
| ~
| |
| f A
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| lff
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| x6$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P P P
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I '
| |
| I 'I~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| h
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| P ~P 'I ~
| |
| ~ '
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| J J h ~ J J ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.01 0.1 100 Natural f [Hz] Wo
| |
| | |
| GINNA-OBE Horizontal Y-Avg.of 4 TH's damping = 2k (factored bye.30)
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| P P
| |
| ~
| |
| P '
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ J
| |
| ~
| |
| P ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ '
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r - r Y~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'Vl
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| Y Y
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 'P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P h P ~ ~ 'I ~ P P ~ ~ ~ '
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| J J~
| |
| ~
| |
| J
| |
| \ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ J ~ ~ J J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| Ol ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| rw~~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| C C
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| ~
| |
| 5
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| Y ~
| |
| C
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I'
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| G ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| C ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| A I J
| |
| ~
| |
| AJ~ ~ ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| r~
| |
| 0
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 01
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I ~
| |
| e
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| J ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~P
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P P '
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P 'I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 'I~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| S r r
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| I'
| |
| ~ ~ I I
| |
| -r-1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I r ~ ~
| |
| 0 1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I I 1 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ' ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| P P '
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| ~ ~P ~ P
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I A ~
| |
| I J AJ
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| l I I I I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
| |
| X ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P '
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P P r ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| Gf ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| IJ ~ J J I ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.01 0.1 10 100 Natural f [Hz]
| |
| | |
| Q 4h g M CA
| |
| 't1 Ch OO O
| |
| GINNA-OBE Vertical Z-Avg.of 4 TH's h5 damping =
| |
| Ocl I
| |
| 2%%d (factored by 3.30) fA pH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ P ~ '
| |
| P P ~ h ~ P '
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| Ch L 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 r
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| r 'O h
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| 1 r I I
| |
| ~
| |
| 'Il
| |
| ~
| |
| r 1
| |
| ~
| |
| Y'V1
| |
| ~ ~ I ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ P
| |
| ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P '
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ h
| |
| ~
| |
| P I
| |
| ~ '
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ I h I ~ ~ I J
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| J J
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| pJ ~ ~ ~ 4J ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| QQ VJ 1
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| r
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~
| |
| ~
| |
| r'I
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 'v r
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I 'I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| O S
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| '8A
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ 4 I I ~ J J ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| F C ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| Cb Ch
| |
| ~
| |
| 0
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 01
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ h 4 I ~ J J J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ Je
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ r~ p p P ~ P P P ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| h h
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| Q r- -r---r- r
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| r ~
| |
| 1 YY~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r ~
| |
| ~
| |
| r---r
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 'v r ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ 1 V
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 1 1
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ 4 4J ~ J J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ J
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 4O
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ 'h P 'h P P ~P h h
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| P P h ~ '
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| J ~ ~
| |
| A I
| |
| ~
| |
| J
| |
| ~
| |
| AA~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~1 I I
| |
| ~
| |
| J~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| C5
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| X r p I
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| P
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 'I~ h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ C0 6$ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| P P P ~~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ 'h
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| M Z
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~~ 4 LJ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ J ~
| |
| ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~~~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| o~
| |
| '0
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.01
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| 0.1 100 Natural f [Hz]
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-7 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹I for (EW) X Direction SSE X-Acceleration Time History 41 damping = 4'.
| |
| 25--
| |
| 0.2-0.1 5 CD 0.1" ' 8 ~ p 0.05-0" ra -0.05 o
| |
| c -0.1 CD
| |
| -0.1 5" ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
| |
| )
| |
| d 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| Figure 3.5-8 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for (EW) X direction SSE X-Acceleration Time History 42 damping =
| |
| 4'.2-a ~~ g"
| |
| : 5. '.1 J ~ ~ . ~
| |
| l 1
| |
| CD
| |
| .O O.l 0.05" 1!I Ii 8 0 rII o
| |
| co -0.05-
| |
| -0.1 "
| |
| I D
| |
| 0 CD -0.1 5 I
| |
| -0.2
| |
| -0.25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 88
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-9 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for (EW) X direction SSE X-Acceleration Time History 4-'3 damping = 4/o 0.25-0.2-"
| |
| 0.1 5<<"
| |
| (9 ,'- ~-
| |
| 0.1"" i
| |
| .9 8(0 -0.05 g -0.1 (g -0 15""
| |
| 0,2. i ~ ~ i ~
| |
| I 1
| |
| -0.25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec3 Figure 3.5-10 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for (EW) X direction SSE X-Acceleration Time History 4-'4 damping =
| |
| 4'.25 I a 0.2 >1 .- = ~ 4 0.15-'
| |
| 0.1-" "'""
| |
| O Q
| |
| 'i
| |
| -005- "
| |
| -~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| I'
| |
| ~
| |
| I I
| |
| I l
| |
| L I I (g -0.1 5'r""""*""
| |
| 4
| |
| -0.2 ' 1 C i
| |
| 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 89
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-11 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for (NS) Y direction SSE Y-Acceleration Time History 4-'1 damping = 4/o 0.25-- C C
| |
| V 0.2-4'7 0.1 5" I (5 I
| |
| .l, 0.1 o.os 8
| |
| t 0>>
| |
| I
| |
| [I -0.05-g -0.1 - ~
| |
| (g -0.1 5")
| |
| I I
| |
| -0.2-' I I
| |
| ~ 1 C
| |
| 4
| |
| -0.25 t C 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec3 Figure 3.5-12 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for (NS) Y direction SSE Y-Acceleration Time History 42 damping = 4'.25 0.2 cl 0,15 i "- ~"
| |
| ~ "~ ~ (s I I CD 0.1 -"""- i I I
| |
| t
| |
| '.05.i 0-$q(
| |
| il ca -0.05 I D j I, I I
| |
| (g -0.15''"" ""- ""1 I I
| |
| -02 . " ~ "--j ~.
| |
| I I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec3 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 90
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-13 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for (NS) Y direction SSE Y-Acceleration Time History 43 damping =
| |
| 4'.25 1 V V 0.2-0.1 5" t 1
| |
| CO 0.1 " >>
| |
| o 1 0.05.~
| |
| Ql 0"
| |
| o M -0.05" 1
| |
| g -0.1 q (g -0.1 5->
| |
| I
| |
| -0.2-- 1 1 1 5 1 1
| |
| -0.25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| Figure 3.5-14 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for (NS) Y direction SSE Y-Acceleration Time History 44 damping = 4' 25" 0.2->>
| |
| t c0 0.15 I. t 1 1 CD 0.1" o
| |
| 5"'j(
| |
| 0.05~
| |
| 0-o ca -0.05-i fl a
| |
| g -0.1 ~
| |
| 0 (g -0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [sec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 91
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-15 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for vertical Z direction SSE Z-Acceleration Time History 41 damping = 4/o 0.1 5 I I
| |
| ~!)f 8 iI
| |
| ~c -o
| |
| -0.1 5" '
| |
| 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| Figure 3.5-16 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for vertical Z direction SSE Z-Acceleration Time History 4-'2 damping =
| |
| 5'~
| |
| 4'.1 I
| |
| I I l I 0.1 (9
| |
| o o L
| |
| CD 0" ik fllipp~
| |
| 8 Id !
| |
| II
| |
| -O. 05 O
| |
| -O.1.i I I
| |
| -0.1 5" 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 92
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-17 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for vertical Z direction SSE Z-Acceleration Time History 4-'3 damping = 4/o 0.1 5 V
| |
| )
| |
| I G0 0,1- I CD l
| |
| -0.05 "-""
| |
| If
| |
| 'I
| |
| -O.1 -" - "": I
| |
| -0.15 l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| Figure 3.5-18 SSE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for vertical Z direction SSE Z-Acceleration Time History 44 damping = 4/o 0.1 5 I I I I I I
| |
| I I I 0.1- I I I
| |
| CD I I 0.05 0)
| |
| CD 0 .M)lI; Cd
| |
| -0.0 O
| |
| -O.1
| |
| -0.1 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 93
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-19 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹I for (EW) X direction OBE X-Acceleration Time History 41 damping = 2/o 0.1 V V I J I I 0.06- I I CO 0.04'.02 0-Va -0.02.
| |
| o
| |
| -0.04~
| |
| (g -0.06.
| |
| -0.08- "
| |
| l I I ~ I
| |
| -0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 4
| |
| 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| Figure 3.5-20 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for (EW) X direction OBE X-Acceleration Time History @2 damping =
| |
| -i-2'.1 0.08 I ) ~
| |
| 0.06 CO I 0.04'"
| |
| O 0.02 '.
| |
| a) 0-g ra -0.02--
| |
| D -0.04" .
| |
| I O I I (g -0.06"
| |
| -0.08 I i
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 I C e I I I
| |
| -0.1 " (
| |
| 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 94
| |
| | |
| ~ 4'
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-21 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for (EW) X direction OBE X-Acceleration Time History P3 damping = 2l
| |
| : 0. 1 I i i ~ ~
| |
| I I C'J 0.06-(9 l Il I I 0.04- I >> = >> I ii
| |
| .O L 0.02-0- I Ii >>
| |
| e -0.02-o g -0.04. I" >>
| |
| (g -0 06 >> ~~ ~>>
| |
| -0.08 i (
| |
| I 'I 1
| |
| -0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [Gec]
| |
| Figure 3.5-22 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for (EW) X direction OBE X-Acceleration Time History P4 damping = 2/o 0.1 0.08 ~ ~ I I >>- >>>> I I 0.06'0 0.04 q L 0.02" 0" !,5IIp lI )I .I M -0.02-
| |
| -0.04" ~
| |
| >> r I
| |
| (g -0.06 5 i I I i i i " ~
| |
| 'I I 5 5 I I I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [haec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 95
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-23 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹j. for (NS) Y direction OBE Y-Acceleration Time History 41 damping = 2/o 0.1-- W C ~ ". ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| (9 0.04 'O j
| |
| F<<
| |
| 0.02- <<<<
| |
| h 0-8 as -0.02" <<1
| |
| 'a <<
| |
| -0 04" <<<< <<
| |
| (g -0.06- <<
| |
| -0.08- I I I l
| |
| -0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec3 Figure 3.5-24 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for (NS) Y direction OBE Y-Acceleration Time History k2 damping = 2''
| |
| : 0. 1 " """" '' ' ' '~"'<<"
| |
| 0.08 ~ ~ ~ << << I 0.06- <<
| |
| CD <<
| |
| 0.04" O
| |
| 0.02 8
| |
| ((s -0.02" 1 III D -0 04-<<.
| |
| O CO
| |
| -0 06. ~
| |
| ( <<
| |
| I t
| |
| -0.08 i <<
| |
| << I (
| |
| -01 '.. "<<"" r "+" ' I I 1
| |
| I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time foec3 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 96
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-25 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for (NS) Y direction GBE Y-Acceleration Time History damping =
| |
| l3 C
| |
| l 1 2'.08-"
| |
| 0.06- . ~ ~
| |
| i CO 0.04 C o
| |
| Ql 8
| |
| 0.02- ~
| |
| ,l i. )jj:III'.
| |
| C) ca -0.02-g -0.04T. l~
| |
| I I (g -0.061 I
| |
| -0.08- . I I W4 ~~
| |
| l I
| |
| -0.1 l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time {'oec3 Pigure 3.5-26 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for (NS) Y direction DBE Y-Acceleration Time History 44 damping = 2/o 0.08 ~ ~ 4~
| |
| )~
| |
| - ~
| |
| 0.04' 1 ~
| |
| 1 O
| |
| 0.02""
| |
| 0) lI ca -0.02- -.
| |
| -0 04" "
| |
| -0.06' I I I
| |
| 0.08 Y """
| |
| 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [oec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 97
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-27 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹1 for vertical Z direction OBE Z-Acceleration Time History 41 damping =
| |
| 2'.06"-
| |
| 0.04q-"" . ~ 1
| |
| .O a)
| |
| O 0-N'j ' 'I f t)~f
| |
| -002---- l:-
| |
| CU O
| |
| -o o4 -" -"." I
| |
| -0.06 l'6 0 4 6 8 10 12 14 18 20 Time [Gec]
| |
| Figure 3.5-28 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹2 for vertical Z direction OBE Z-Acceleration Time History P2 damping = 2' 06" "C I I l
| |
| I l CQ 0.04~"-"- "- I t
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| I I I t I
| |
| L C) 002 l
| |
| 0-4 r)
| |
| -o.o4 I
| |
| j l 1
| |
| -0.06 ~
| |
| 'I i'
| |
| 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [Gec3 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 98
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-29 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹3 for vertical Z direction OBE Z-Acceleration Time History 4-'3 damping =
| |
| 2'.06 I
| |
| i CD O
| |
| 3 0.02
| |
| ' q--""
| |
| j I',ij
| |
| -0.02- "
| |
| I O
| |
| i CD Q Q4 ~ ~ ~- >>~ ~ i ~ s ~ ~
| |
| (
| |
| i i I i
| |
| -0.06 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [Gec]
| |
| Figure 3.5-30 OBE Acceleration Time History ¹4 for vertical Z direction OBE Z-Acceleration Time History 44 damping = 2/o j
| |
| s si(
| |
| +c 0 02
| |
| -0.04
| |
| -0. 06"'" I
| |
| (
| |
| I i
| |
| ( '
| |
| 0 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time [Dec]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 99
| |
| | |
| 3.5.2 Structural Analysis Methods RG8cE Ginna Nuclear Plant spent fuel storage system structure is evaluated using state-of- the-art analytical methods. To expedite Staff review, the methods used in current license applications are used here. The methods of analysis used are well documented in text books and open literature. The method and source references are identified throughout the report. The following subsections provide more details on these methods.
| |
| 3.5.2.1 Assumptions - Seismic/Structural
| |
| : 1. Rack stainless steel responds elastically under all loading, including seismic OBE and SSE.
| |
| : 2. Hydrodynamic coupling terms were calculated based upon potential flow theory with consideration of horizontal flow.
| |
| : 3. For the 3-D single rack model and the 3-D whole pool model, a number of actual support legs were modeled by four legs placed at the corners of the rack base plate.
| |
| : 4. Seismic input consists of three statistically independent orthogonal time histories of motion, simultaneously applied at each pool point under rack legs, and at pool wall points hydrodynamically coupled to the rack beams.
| |
| Four sets of earthquake inputs were generated. Alleffects of the earthquake were examined; i.e., leg and pool wall reaction forces, displacements, tipping, etc. A single earthquake time history was selected for OBE and SSE conditions. In each case, a seismic response spectra enveloping factor was determined, such that the average of four developed time histories would envelop the specified floor response spectra throughout the frequency range, to meet the requirements specified in SRP 3.7.1 of NUREG 0800. A time history factor was then applied to the final results to ensure that the results would remain the most conservative and envelope all time history cases.
| |
| : 6. It was assumed that the hydrodynamic coupling forces were dependent upon the initial gap.
| |
| The results of the 3-D whole pool analysis showed the suitability of this assumption. This was due to the fact that increases in gaps on one side of the rack tended to be offset by decreases in gaps on the other side. Further gap closures would produce higher hydrodynamic coupling forces, which would decrease further closure.
| |
| : 7. Coefficients of friction between 0.2 and 0.8 are adequate to cover the range between the lower and the upper &ictionvalues between the rack legs and the pool floor. A selective run was made with the coefficient of friction of 0.5 to show that loads were bounded for the coefficient of friction of 0.8, and the displacements were bounded for the coefficient of friction of 0.2.
| |
| : 8. Buoyancy was considered for the calculations of rack and fuel weights.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 100
| |
| : 9. The use of 20.0 seconds for the duration of the seismic time histories is sufficient. It was shown that the developed time histories match the requirements specified in SRP 3.7.1 of NUREG-0800, Reference 3.2.
| |
| : 10. Nominal dimensions were used in the analysis.
| |
| : 11. Allowable material properties as specified in the ASME Code, Section III were used.
| |
| : 12. Hydrodynamic coupling between fuel and rack cells, between racks and between racks and pool wall was taken into account.
| |
| : 13. Allthe fuel assemblies act simultaneously to produce the maximum loading effect.
| |
| : 14. Allrack stresses, excluding the legs and the leg weld attachments, are evaluated based upon maximum forces rather than upon time dependent forces.
| |
| : 15. The pool was considered as a rigid structure with regard to the seismic excitation.
| |
| : 16. A damping coefficient of 2% was used for OBE and 4% for SSE.
| |
| : 17. Borated stainless steel density and coefficient of thermal expansion were taken as the same as 304L stainless steel.
| |
| 3.5.2.2 Analytical Procedure 3.5.2.2.1 Seismic Analysis The methodology used to perform the seismic analysis of the racks is described in this section. The racks are &ee standing modules which are independent of each other as well as the walls. The racks are simply supported by the pool floor with no structural connection. Therefore, the racks may slide and tip.
| |
| A wide range of seismic analyses were performed accounting for:
| |
| A. variation in coefficient of friction, B. variation in fuel loading, C. various levels of seismic activity, D. hydrodynamic coupling, E. sliding and tipping of racks, and F. impact of fuel assemblies within the racks.
| |
| The new racks (racks 7 through 13) to be added at the Ginna Station utilize high density, free standing spent fuel storage racks. Due to the fact that the new high density spent fuel racks are &ee-standing structures which are free to slide and tip, a nonlinear dynamic analysis is required to evaluate the cases of Operational Basis Earthquake (OBE) and Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).
| |
| The racks are of two basic design variations: namely those in Region 1 and Region 2. Region 1 is designed to accommodate &esh fuel assemblies, while Region 2 is designed to accommodate spent 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 101
| |
| | |
| fuel assemblies. In addition, Region 1 and 2 are designed to store consolidated spent fuel canisters with a 2:1 consolidation ratio. A general layout of the array of racks, Region 1 and 2, are shown in Figure 3.5-36.
| |
| The analyses were performed using several mathematical models. The models included features to allow sliding and tipping of the racks and to represent the hydrodynamic coupling which occurs between fuel assemblies and rack cells, between racks, and between racks and reinforced concrete pool walls.
| |
| A 3-D single rack beam model was used to select the appropriate parameters for the multi-rack whole pool nonlinear analysis. The 3-D single rack model simulated the three-dimensional characteristics of the rack modules in a comprehensive manner. The physical degrees of freedom such as lifting, twisting, bending, sliding, overturning, etc., were incorporated into the dynamic model as required. The 3-D single rack model could not evaluate multi-rack effects, such as relative rack-to-rack displacements, so a 3-D whole pool model was used. The 3-D single rack model was used to determine the sensitivity of various parameters on the structural response and to simplify the input for the 3-D whole pool analysis. 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. The 3-D whole pool model was used to determine all forces and moments for each rack module, and then used for the stress analysis of the racks. This model was also used to determine the relative rack-to-rack and the rack-to-wall motions.
| |
| The 3-D single rack model determined the following:
| |
| : 1) A single enveloping seismic time history factor (see Section 3.5.2.6).
| |
| : 2) Effects of rack stiffness on forces, moments and displacements (see Section 3.5.2.7).
| |
| : 3) Forces transmitted to the inter-rack connections from the peripheral racks to the existing Region 2 racks. Including parameters for these connections in the 3-D whole pool model would have made the model too complex to run for the nonlinear analysis. The 3-D single rack model was run for the rack that produced the highest load for the peripheral rack (see Section 3.5.3.1.7.3).
| |
| : 4) Effects of off-centered fuel loadings (see Section 3.5.3.1.7.4).
| |
| : 5) Comparison of single 3-D rack models with connected and disconnected fuel beams (see Section 3.5.3.1.7.5).
| |
| : 6) Effect of rack height increase (see Section 3.5.3.1.7.2).
| |
| In both the 3-D single rack model and the 3-D whole pool multi-rack model, the racks and the fuel assemblies in each rack were represented as a single member. Hydrodynamic coupling and impact forces were obtained for fuel to rack impact. Impact forces from rack support legs to pool floors were also obtained, as well as maximum loadings (both vertical and lateral) on the support legs.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 102
| |
| | |
| Detailed descriptions of the 3-D single rack model and the 3-D whole pool model used in the analysis are given in Section 3.5.2.3.
| |
| The other models used in the stress analysis included (1) a 3-D single rack plate model and (2) single cell models with tabs. The 3-D single rack plate model was used for the static stress, thermal, and the base plate stress analysis. The single cell models with tabs were used to determine the distribution of the local fuel to rack impact loadings.
| |
| The 3-D whole pool model was run for twelve (12) different pool loading configurations as described in Section 3.5.2.3 and provided in Table 3.5-64. To account for all possible combinations, fuel loading conditions of empty, half-loaded, and fully-loaded racks were analyzed.
| |
| Both normal fuel assemblies and consolidated fuel canisters were considered. Interface coefficients of friction considered for the racks were as follows:
| |
| a) all at 0.2, b) one run of all at 0.5 c) all at 0.8, and d) mixed, which were statistically determined as provided in Tables 3.5-65 and 3.5-66.
| |
| Maximum sliding occurs when the interface coefficient of &iction is 0.2 and maximum tipping and stress occurs when the interface coefficient of friction is 0.8. Therefore, only selective runs were made with the mixed coefficients of friction.
| |
| The maximum loads for each rack and relative gap closures between racks were determined. The maximum loads generated onto the resident racks were then compared with the loads used for the original licensing of the racks (racks 1 through 6).
| |
| 3.5.2.2.2 Structural Analysis 3.5.2.2.2.1 Rack Stresses The results of all the dynamic analysis runs included both seismic and dead loads. For both OBE and SSE conditions, all acceleration time histories were amplified by a seismic response spectra enveloping factor of 1.1. As described in Section 3.5.2.6, a time history factor of 1.2 applied to the SSE loads would completely envelop loads generated from all four of the SSE time histories.
| |
| Similarly, a factor of 1.12 was developed for the OBE loads.
| |
| The accompanying Tables 3.5-141 through 3.5-146 list the stress allowable and the results of the analyses. Stresses in the tubes were calculated from the 3-D whole pool model based upon the overall moments and shears applied to the rack. In addition, the fuel to rack impacts causes bending stresses in the walls of the structural tubes. Since the tubes act together in resisting seismic loads, shear forces must be transferred through the connecting tabs. Due to these shear forces, the tab plates are subjected to shear and bending moments. The welds are, therefore, subject to stresses due to tab plate bending and shear.
| |
| The connecting tabs are used to connect structural tubes together so that the rack acts as a structural element. The tab and weld arrangements and results are described in Section 3.5.3.1.2.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 103
| |
| | |
| The tabs are designed to be capable of canying the shear flow &om one tube to the next. Due to the grid arrangement, the shear stress in each direction willtend to be uniform in plan. Maximum base shear force, calculated from the 3-D whole pool analysis, was found in two orthogonal directions; i.e., N-S, E-W. All tabs and welds for ATEA racks are designed for the worst load cases. Results
| |
| &om the 3-D whole pool model analysis provide information on overall maximum stresses in cells.
| |
| The output forces and stresses of all bounding runs using the 3-D whole pool model are provided in Section 3.5.3.1.8.
| |
| 3.5.2.2.2.2 Support Legs and Concrete Bearing Stresses The bearing stresses in the concrete slab and the stresses in the'upport legs were determined for deadweight, thermal and seismic (OBE & SSE) loadings. Boussinesq's solution (Reference 3.35) for half-space was also used to estimate bearing stresses in the concrete (see Section 3.5.3.1.5 for loads).
| |
| The maximum horizontal and vertical load inputs to the model were taken from the results from the 3-D whole pool analyses (see Section 3.5.3.1.5 for loads). The maximum support reactions, overall bending moments and forces calculated from the time history analyses were used to determine stresses in the support legs and reinforced concrete.
| |
| According to Reference 3.22, the average concrete strength of the spent fuel pool concrete is 3,000 psi. The average pressure (bearing) under the bearing pad shall not exceed the design basis pressure for a dead load or seismic load.
| |
| The maximum bearing stress in the concrete was calculated by taking the maximum vertical support leg loads determined from the 3-D whole pool analyses and dividing by the area of the bearing pad.
| |
| As another check for bearing stresses, Boussinesq's solution for half-space was used. In this method, it was assumed that a normal force is acting on the plane boundary of a semi-infinite solid. All results are summarized in Section 3.5.3.1.9.
| |
| The stress allowable pertaining to the support leg, analysis details and tabulated results are given in Section 3.5.3.1.9.
| |
| 3.5.2.2.2.3 Weld Stresses The weld patterns of connecting tabs were calculated for each rack in Region 1 and Region 2. The controlling load combinations were the consolidated fuel case for both OBE and SSE conditions with the coefficient of friction of 0.8.
| |
| The structural tubes are welded to the base plate by means of fillet welds. The welds transfer the base shear forces and the base bending moments from the tubes to the base plate. The base shear in either the E-W or N-S direction is assumed to cause longitudinal shear stresses in the welds oriented in the E-W and N-S directions, respectively. The bending moments cause vertical shear stresses in the welds.
| |
| The weld material is 308L, for which the minimum tensile strength is S= 70,000 psi 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 104
| |
| | |
| Weld stress limit to 0.3S for Service Level A
| |
| = 21,000 psi.
| |
| Weld stress limit to 0.42S for Service Level D
| |
| =29,400 psi To= 180 F The results of the maximum tab and tube weld stresses are listed in Tables 3.5-144 and 3.5-145.
| |
| 3.5.2.2.2.4 Fuel-to-Rack Impact Loads Evaluation The loading due to fuel assemblies was considered for unconsolidated, consolidated, half-full and empty conditions. The impact forces between the fuel assemblies and rack cell are presented in Section 3.5.3.1.6. In all cases for the OBE and SSE, the case of unconsolidated fuel caused the greatest seismic fuel-to-rack impact loading to occur. The hydrodynamic coupling between the unconsolidated fuel and the rack cells was much lower than the hydrodynamic coupling between the consolidated fuel canisters and the rack cells, thus permitting greater impact to occur.
| |
| The analysis was performed to demonstrate the fuel rack-cell wall structural integrity due to impact loading of fuel assemblies. The local stress in the rack cell was calculated &om the peak impact load obtained from all the dynamic analysis runs that included both seismic and dead loads. The stress limits specified for Level B loadings (OBE) and Level D loadings (SSE) given in the ASME Section III Code (Reference 3.19) were used to obtain the limiting impact load.
| |
| The stresses in the rack cell were determined using a finite element model of a single cell. For this analysis, the base of the plate was assumed fixed, the other edges along the height of the cell were assumed simply-supported, and the top edge of the cell was assumed free. The model was constructed of shell elements with ANSYS 5.2 (Reference 3.40)
| |
| Table 3.5-58 provides the allowable load and the maximum load obtained for all of the load cases analyzed. As described in Section 3.5.2.6, a time history factor, of 1.2 and 1.12 was applied to the maximum SSE and OBE loads respectively. The calculated maximum fuel assembly-rack cell wall impact loads for the SSE and OBE cases, accounting for the time history factor, are well below the allowable load limit. This confirms the local cell wall integrity for the maximum fuel to rack cell wall impact loads.
| |
| 3.5.2.2.2.5 Sliding and Tipping In addition to the results of the 3-D whole pool analysis used to determine stresses, data is also provided on the maximum relative sliding and tipping.
| |
| The results indicate that the vibratory nature of the seismic effects precludes a significant degree of sliding and tipping. The sliding and tipping have three major effects: 1) the sliding is an energy dissipator, 2) the sliding precludes the effect of resonance since energy is not stored, and 3) both tipping and sliding limit the forces that can be introduced into the rack.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 105
| |
| | |
| f The horizontal seismic displacements of the pool floor are transferred to the racks through the support legs. The base shear force is limited by the coefficient of friction in sliding. The effective bending moment at the base of the r'ack is limited to that bending moment which causes some support legs to liftoff. However, even after tipping has occurred, resistance to tipping is provided by the moments attributed to the extreme support legs still bearing upon the floor.
| |
| Supporting calculations for the 3-D single rack model and the 3-D whole pool model are provided in Section 3.5.3.1.1.
| |
| 3.5.2.2.2.6 Expected Loads on Floor From Racks Each rack responds to the seismic input causing peak maximum support pad loads in addition to maximum average support pad loads. The concrete bearing stresses were checked for maximum peak and average support pad loads and found to be within the allowables, as presented in Table 3.5-142. Due to the supporting surface (concrete) being wider on all sides than the loaded area (support pads), the design bearing strength was increased by a factor of two per ACI 349-85, Section 10.15, Reference 3.20. Information on the floor loads is provided in Section 3.5.3.1.5.
| |
| 3.5.2.2.2.7 Pool Liner Plate Integrity Evaluation The pool liner is subject to a top surface shearing load due to the frictional reaction load. By definition, the maximum shear force imposed by the support leg is 0.8 times the vertical force. The vertical reaction is transferred directly downward to the concrete through the liner plate. The maximum bearing stresses and tensile stresses induced on the liner are provided in Section 3.5.3.1.17.
| |
| 3.5.2.3 Detailed Descriptions of Mathematical Models The ANSYS (Reference 3.40) Finite-Element Analysis Code was used for the structuraVseismic analysis of the racks. Both elastic shell element and beam element models were created. 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 models used in the analysis are described in the following paragraphs.
| |
| Model 1 D Single Rack Plate Model A 3-D Single Rack Plate Model (See Figure 3.5-33) was prepared for use in the static stress, thermal, and the base plate stress analysis. This model consisted of shell elements representing the cells of the rack. A 9x11 rack module was chosen since it holds the largest number of consolidated fuel assemblies, which will result in the greatest support pad loadings.
| |
| In the static analysis, all support pads are restrained against sliding and tipping. The maximum horizontal and vertical loads and bending moments input to the model were taken from the results of the 3-D whole'pool model seismic analyses. Upper bound values are used in the selection of the seismic g loads. Therefore, though results of this analysis are considered conservative, they provide important information on pad bearing forces and stresses in the rack.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 106
| |
| | |
| Model 2-3-D Single Rack Beam Model A 3-D Single Rack Beam Model (see Figure 3.5-31) was used for parametric studies relating to the seismic dynamic analyses of the racks. The rack modules in the pool were modeled as non-linear dynamic structures taking the geometric and physical nonlinearities into consideration, and analyzed by the nonlinear time history analysis method.
| |
| The nonlinearities arise primarily from the following:
| |
| : 1. The support legs are free to slide in any horizontal direction and can lift off, vertically upward.
| |
| : 2. The fuel assembly, whether consolidated in a canister or not, is not structurally tied to the fuel rack cell. This results in either a fluid gap or an impact at any time during the seismic
| |
| ,event.
| |
| Allstructural members are modeled by the ANSYS BEAM4 element. The BEAM4 element is a 3-D elastic beam with six degrees of freedom at each node. Beam elements are used to model the rack legs, the base plate, the rack tubes, and the fuel.
| |
| The fuel beam and the rack beam are vertical beams located at the centroid of the rack in the horizontal plane. The fuel beam and the rack beam are connected at the bottom end. The baseplate beams extend horizontally Rom the bottom of the rack beam to the centers of the corner rack cells.
| |
| At the corner rack cells, rack leg beams extend vertically downward from the ends of the baseplate beams. Each leg beam represents one fourth of the total number of rack legs.
| |
| All mass is represented by MASS21 elements. The MASS21 element is a lumped mass element which can be applied in all three directions. The MASS21 element can also apply rotary inertia to represent the lumped mass more as a distributed mass.
| |
| All contact elements between the rack legs and pool liner and between and the rack tubes and fuel are modeled with CONTACT52 elements. The CONTACT52 element is a 3-D point to point contact element which allows for gaps, interface stiffness, and sliding friction.
| |
| Allhydrodynamic coupling between the fuel and rack, and between the rack and adjacent racks are modeled with the FLUID38 elements. The FLUID38 element is a hydrodynamic coupling element with two degrees of freedom at each node, i.e. horizontal translation in two orthogonal axes perpendicular to the vertical axes of the coupled cylinders.
| |
| The rack analysis incorporates inertial fluid coupling terms which model the effects of fluid in the gaps between the fuel assemblies and racks, between adjacent racks, and between the racks and the pool walls. The corresponding hydrodynamic masses were calculated using established methods, based on potential theory described in References 3.38.
| |
| The inter-rack hydrodynamic masses were calculated using formulations developed for rectangular shapes (Reference 3.38) assuming nominal gaps between racks. The hydrodynamic mass for concentric long cylinders given in Reference 3.38 was used for fuel-to-rack coupling terms.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 107
| |
| | |
| Gap elements were provided in the mathematical model as follows:
| |
| a1 The fuel assembly to cell gap included an elastic spring which became effective when the gap is closed. This spring stiffness was based upon the bending stiffness of the cell walls restrained at corners.
| |
| : b. The support leg to pool floor gap was represented separately in the vertical and horizontal directions. The horizontal reaction was based upon the coefficient of friction times the vertical reaction up until the summation of horizontal reaction exceeded the horizontal inertial force, at which time the rack is assumed to slide. As a conservatism, the Rayleigh damping effect in the reinforced concrete slab was not considered, for the vertical impact support leg load.
| |
| There are two basic single rack models. The first is a representation of rack 8(2B), a 9x11 Region 2 rack designed by ATEA. The second is a representation of rack 1, an existing Region 2 rack in the R.E. Ginna spent fuel pool, with a peripheral rack, rack 4A, attached.
| |
| Model 3-3-D Whole Pool Model A 3-D Whole Pool Model was used to determine the relative rack-to-rack and the rack-to-wall motions. This model was also used to determine all maximum forces and moments for each rack module. The arrangements of the Ginna spent fuel pool with seven new ATEA spent fuel racks and six resident racks are shown in Figure 3.5-36. Note in this figure that racks 1, through 6 are the resident racks and 7 through 13 are the new racks.
| |
| The individual rack models were combined as shown in Figure 3.5-32. The rack properties were taken &om the rack properties for each rack. The major difference between this rack model and the 3-D single rack model was in the representation of the fuel. The individual rack model used in the 3-D whole pool model used a common node between the rack beam and the fuel beam at the base plate of the rack as shown in Figure 3.5-40. It was shown that this common node does not affect the rack forces and moments obtained from the analysis (see Table 3.5-63). The base location nodes of the rack beam and the fuel beam are connected by a spring element in the 3-D single rack model.
| |
| The fuel mass in the 3-D whole pool model is distributed with 1/4 of the total fuel mass located at the top node of the fuel beam element. One half of the total fuel mass and one half of the rack mass are located at the middle nodes of the fuel and rack beams. The remaining 1/4 of the fuel mass, 1/4 of the rack mass and the bottom rack plate mass, as well as the leg masses are combined at the bottom node.
| |
| Hydrodynamic coupling terms were calculated for each rack and then averaged for the connection between any two racks. The coupling for any perimeter rack to the pool wall was taken simply as the hydrodynamic coupling for that specific rack.
| |
| The fuel to rack hydrodynamic coupling was accounted for with one half of the coupling placed between the top nodes of the rack and fuel beams. The other half of the fuel to rack coupling was placed between the middle two nodes of the rack and fuel beams.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 108
| |
| | |
| The other parameters used in the 3-D whole pool model are similar to the 3-D single rack analysis.
| |
| Buoyancy was considered for the calculations of rack and fuel weights.
| |
| The coefficient of &iction between the rack support legs and pool liner used in the 3-D whole pool analysis corresponded to the following cases:
| |
| i) All coefficient of friction = 0.2 ii) All coefficient of friction = 0.8 iii) All coefficient of friction = 0.5 iv) Combination of friction coefficients between 0.2 and 0.8. The coefficients of friction between the rack support legs and pool liner were generated using a Gaussian distribution random number generator with 0.52 as the mean and 0.148 standard deviations. Separate calculations were carried out for both OBE and SSE conditions.
| |
| Conditions of full, empty and half-loaded with fuel assemblies were analyzed. The storage locations occupied by fuel in the half-loaded conditions were selected in such a manner that the center of gravity of the loaded racks is farthest &om its geometric plane of symmetry (i.e., torsional response of rack was considered).
| |
| A total of twelve separate cases were analyzed with the 3-D whole pool model. There is a total of thirteen (13) racks in the 3-D whole pool model. The load cases analyzed are summarized in Table 3.5-64. The first ten cases assumed each rack filled with unconsolidated fuel or consolidated fuel with the coefficient of &iction being varied with values of 0.8, 0.5 and 0.2. The seismic loads consist of both the SSE and OBE conditions. The last two cases (11 and 12) were run with the racks assigned various fuel loadings as given in Tables 3.5-65 and 3.5-66. Also, the racks were assigned random coefficients of &iction with values of 0.8, 0.5 and 0.2 as given in Tables 3.5-65 and 3.5-66.
| |
| The kinematic criterion seeks to ensure that the rack is a physically stable structure. The physical stability of the rack must be considered with the criterion that inter-rack impact or rack-to-wall impacts do not occur. However, the impact of the fuel assembly on the cell does occur and was evaluated and accounted for.
| |
| Forces generated from the impact events between the fuel assemblies and the rack cells were considered for local as well as overall effects on the cell walls and rack module. It was demonstrated that such an impact does not lead to damage of the rack modules.
| |
| Single Cell Models with Tabs Two 3-D finite element models of type 2 and type 3 individual spent fuel storage rack cells were made with ANSYS 5.2 using a SHELL63 element. The models were used to determine the distribution of connecting tab translational reaction loads. The finite element models for the type 2 rack cell and the type 3 rack cell are shown in Figures 3.5-34 and 3.5-35 respectively. The type 2 cell is subjected to a pressure load on the inside surface of one cell face, and a pressure load on the 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 109
| |
| | |
| outside surface of an opposite cell face. The type 3 cell is subjected to a pressure load on the inside surface of one cell face, and concentrated loads at eight belt elevations on the outside surface of an opposite cell face. The entire length of the connecting tabs is modeled such that the stiffness of the tab is represented properly.
| |
| The type 2 and type 3 cell models were loaded as described above with an arbitrary load to represent a fuel assembly loading inside and outside of a cell. The connecting tab reaction loads were then ratioed up or down based on the actual loading. These reaction loads were used to determine the stresses in the tab, and in the tab weld at each tab location. The maximum stress intensity of the cell .
| |
| was also obtained for the type 2 and type 3 cells from these finite element models.
| |
| Stress analysis details on the connection tabs, welds, and tube (rack cell) are given in Section 3.5.3.1.2.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 110
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-31 3D - Single Rack Model n24 GAP nrr ELEMENT n21 FLUID COUPLING (Fuel-to-Rack) n30 ELEMENT n33 RACK 03 22 n10 n17 FUEL n29 II32 n25 n4 n1 n9 GAP n8 n28 n18 FLOOR n31 FLUID SUPPORT COUPLING n2 LEG ELEMENT (Rack-to-WaII) n8 n18 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 111
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-32 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Rack Model R10 R13 R2 R4 R6 R9 R1 R1 Rl R3 RS 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 112
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-33 Single Rack Finite Element Model 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 113
| |
| | |
| =~II(
| |
| )~lllp1$5 )[
| |
| <II
| |
| (-''lily 1g'~ll)g<lg==:=i=,---=alii iI<llii~l<l~~i~lll===:.ii
| |
| ~~ill <i==-ii = ==~~~
| |
| <--;Igl<llllili~lgllti~~
| |
| <~Ill/ ====>~Ill[
| |
| 'lg
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ I
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| +.==I](
| |
| NEMESES I
| |
| waeei
| |
| ~
| |
| ~~~
| |
| l~ ~ei>E><
| |
| ~wq~~113E
| |
| )I //
| |
| Irr>~ '<i')====r I)I[I) ~~~~
| |
| I((l l<~~l
| |
| ~~~~~/(]
| |
| '1LWLWWL I I qk~WWk wlllkLILi//~
| |
| pe) [I $g I) I<1~)~)~ j')I i~lii= l~~ll lp l)======il
| |
| ~ ' ~
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-36 Plan View of Spent Fuel Pool
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 457.75 I25 043 3.38 327
| |
| ~8<<30 4.30 4.30 92.34 (L79 92.34 1.72 1950 6 20 15.25 4.75 14.25 12.75 NIO - 3A (7%10) 30.73
| |
| '%6 0.79 (5%10)+(2%6) 42 14 (14%10) 118.02 >+
| |
| 012 - 3D 04%10) (14%10) 3.38 $9 3C (5%10)
| |
| (5%10) 0.79 050 0.75 a75 26663
| |
| - ~ ll - 3E 1.75 0.75 %8 28 (6%10 PIMO 2) 64Ai3 (9%11) 76 46 43 ~5 0.79
| |
| ~I IIBAR (14%10) (14%10) (14%10) 96.48 1040 ~7 2A (8%1,) 6(L07 87.74 I204trs+ 15.50 17AIO 14.75 525 ~ ", . 6.0O . 7.SO I 93>>~ g 7.05 REGION 2 ~REGION I (INCLUDES 2A 6 2B)
| |
| NOI" th Notei Racks 1 thrv 6 are exlstlng racks
| |
| +X%East. +Y=N()rth, +Z=Up
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| Note: Pool overall dimensions are for information only.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 116
| |
| | |
| 3.5.2.4 Detailed Documentation of Computer Codes 3.5.2.4.1 General The following is a description of the computer codes and verification/validation methods (as applicable) used in the structuraVseismic analyses performed by FCF for the Ginna Station Spent Fuel Storage Racks. A copy ofthe user's manual and documentation for SIMQKE is available in the Public Domain.
| |
| 3.5.2.4.2 StructuraVSeismic Computer Codes Two computer codes were utilized for the structural/seismic calculations, ANSYS (Reference 3.40) and SIMQKE (Reference 3.41).
| |
| 3.5.2.4.2.1 ANSYS The primary code which was used for the structural analyses is ANSYS Version 5.2. ANSYS is a general purpose, finite element program for solving a wide variety of engineering analysis problems.
| |
| ANSYS employs the latest finite element technology for the solution of several classes of engineering problems. ANSYS has a large library of elements and an extensive selection of material properties, both linear and nonlinear. The sofbvare services a wide spectrum of uses, &om the linear elastic analysis of two dimensional and three-dimensional solids to applications in which nonlinear material and geometric eQects dominate. These applications must be included in conjunction with sophisticated geometric modeling. The regime of applications varies from static to dynamic structural problems. Mesh generators and extensive pre-processing and post-processing graphics help in establishing the correct analysis.
| |
| Since 1970, this program has been used extensively by analysts in the nuclear, chemical, construction, and electronic industries. Extensive use has led to a high degree of reliability in obtained computer results. The ANSYS analysis types include the following:
| |
| Static analysis
| |
| ~
| |
| Dynamic analysis Nonlinear transient, linear transient, harmonic response, mode-frequency, modal seismic, random vibration.
| |
| ~
| |
| Buckling and stability analysis
| |
| ~ Linear buckling, nonlinear buckling
| |
| ~ Heat transfer analysis Nonlinearities Material, geometric, element Substructures 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 117
| |
| | |
| AllANSYS analysis types are based on classical engineering concepts. Through proven numerical techniques, these concepts can be formulated into matrix equations that are suitable for analysis using the finite element method. The system to be analyzed is represented by a mathematical model consisting of elements and nodes. Structural element types include spars, pipes and elbows, beams, plates, shells, solids, masses, springs, dampers, sliding interfaces, and gap interfaces. Also, arbitrary stiffness, mass and damping matrix elements are available.
| |
| Loading input for structural analyses may be nodal forces, body forces, displacements, velocities, accelerations, pressures, or temperatures. These inputs may be sinusoidal, random or an arbitrary function of time for the linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses. Mode frequency analyses may include force spectrum or response spectrum loadings. Structural analysis outputs are usually forces, displacements, stresses, and strains.
| |
| ANSYS has been used at FCF for the last 21 years, and analyses are performed per procedures that include the guidelines for the certification of computer codes. FCF has verified that ANSYS 5.2 is acceptable for this analysis and that all applicable error reports have been reviewed and have been shown to have no effect on these analyses.
| |
| 3.5.2.4.2.1.1 Summary of Element Types Used in the ANSYS Models The following is a list of the element types which were used in the ANSYS models:
| |
| BEAM4 The BEAM4 element is a 3-D elastic beam with six degrees of freedom at each node.
| |
| Beam elements were used to model the rack legs, the baseplate, the rack tubes, and the fuel.
| |
| MASS21 The MASS21 element is a lumped mass element which can be applied in all three orthogonal directions. The MASS21 element can also apply rotary inertia to represent the lumped mass more as a distributed mass.
| |
| CONTACT52 The CONTACT52 element is a 3-D point-to-point contact element which allows for gaps, interface stifRess, and sliding friction.
| |
| FLUID38 The FLUID38 element is a hydrodynamic coupling element with two degrees of
| |
| &eedom at each node, translation perpendicular to the axes of the coupled cylinders.
| |
| SHELL63 The SHELL63 element is an elastic shell element that has both bending and membrane capabilities. Both in-plane and normal loads are permitted. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node. The SHELL63 element was used in the single 3D plate models of the racks, and in the local rack cell models with connecting tabs.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 118
| |
| | |
| 3.5.2.4.2.1.2 Summary of ANSYS Error Reports for Element Types Used Error No: 96-14 Use of SHELL63 elements with: (1) NON-UNIFORMthermal loads, and (2) any nonlinearity in the model, and (3) extra displacement shapes. This error is not applicable for our analyses since we didn't use any non-uniform thermal loads.
| |
| Error No: 96-26 Use of SHELL63 elements with the Allman in-plane rotational stiffness (KEYOPT(3)=2) in any one of the following: (1) a buckling analysis, or (2) a prestressed analysis, or (3) in a nonlinear analysis with stress stiffening.
| |
| This error is not applicable for our analysis since we didn't use the Allman in-plane rotational stiffness (KEYOPT(3)=2).
| |
| | |
| == Conclusion:==
| |
| None of the ANSYS Error Reports had any effect on the results of the analyses.
| |
| 3.5.2.4.2.2 SIMQKE The program SIMQKE has these capabilities: it computes a power spectral density function from a specified smooth response spectrum; it generates statistically independent artificial acceleration times histories and tries, by iteration, to match the specified response spectrum; it performs a baseline correction on the generated motion to ensure zero final ground velocity; and it calculates response spectra with the time histories as input.
| |
| The artificial motion generated by the program is a series of sinusoidal waves multiplied by an intensity envelope function:
| |
| Z(t) = I(t)LAsin(w,t+ $ g A is the amplitude and $ , is the phase angle of the n~ contributing sinusoid. By fixing an array of amplitudes and generating different arrays of phase angles, one obtains different motions with the same general appearance but different details.
| |
| The computer uses a random number generator to produce strings of phase angles with uniform likelihood in the range between 0 and 2z.
| |
| The amplitudes Aare related to the (one-sided) spectral density function G(w) in the following way:
| |
| G(wg6w = A~/2 The total power may be expressed as:
| |
| ZA'/2 = Z G(wg5w Three different intensity envelope functions I(t) are available "Trapezoidal," "Exponential" and "Compound." The program artificially raises or lowers the generated peak acceleration to match the target peak acceleration exactly. The response spectra corresponding to the motion are then 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 119
| |
| | |
| computed. The response spectrum for one chosen damping value is called the "target" response spectrum which the program will attempt to "match."
| |
| To smooth the calculated spectrum and to improve the matching, an iterative procedure is implemented. In each cycle of the iteration, the calculated response is compared with the target at a set of control frequencies specified by the user.
| |
| 3.5.2.5 Hydrodynamic Fluid Coupling The present rack analysis incorporates inertial fluid coupling terms which model the effects of fluid in the gaps between fuel assemblies and racks, between adjacent racks, and between the racks and the pool wall. The corresponding hydrodynamic masses are calculated using established methods, based on potential theory, and documented in References 3.38. The following sections describe hydrodynamic masses and their methods of application.
| |
| The relative contribution of fluid coupling is dependent upon fluid gaps and the relative motion between the bodies considered. The values calculated for the present analysis are based on nominal gaps. The coupling terms for "in-phase" rack motion are determined for gaps equivalent to nominal, and for "out-of-phase" rack motion are determined for gaps equal to I/2 nominal. A general description of the methods used is given herein.
| |
| The equations indicate that the hydrodynamic coupling forces would become infinite as the gaps approach zero, so to be conservative, the calculation of the hydrodynamic mass is based on the original gaps. Impact forces would be calculated ifgaps are to close to zero.
| |
| ANSYS Element STIF38 is used. The option of calculating hydrodynamic masses both on diagonal and offdiagonal terms of the mass matrix is selected. The hydrodynamic element masses inserted in the mass matrix are:
| |
| m>> 0 mI3 0 where: m>> =M,m~~=M 0 m>> 0 m,4 m>>=m,I = (M, +M )
| |
| m>> 0 m>> 0 m~~ =M, +M~+M 0 m4, 0 m44 m,4=m4,=-(M,+M )
| |
| m44=M, +M,+M The general equation for fluid kinetic energy is used to estimate the hydrodynamic mass. The values of these masses is based upon the equations developed by Singh-90 (Reference 3.38).
| |
| 3.5.2.5.1 Fuel-to-Rack Hydrodynamic Coupling Fuel Assemblies The fuel assembly contains 179 individual fuel rods, 16 guide tubes and one instrument tube. These rods and tubes are held in position by spacer grids. There is no outside sheathing, so the hydrodynamic coupling is based upon each fuel rod, assumed to be at the center of the cell.
| |
| For concentric long cylinders, the hydrodynamic mass is given by Singh-90 (Reference 3.38):
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 120
| |
| | |
| R 2 +R 1
| |
| -R 1 nnPR1 h R2 where R, = fuel rod radius R, = rack cell "equivalent" radius h = height of fuel within rack p = density of fluid n = number of fuel rods and tubes R2 + R 1 Since R, <<R2 Therefore: R R H= P II R1 h i~1 Fuel Assembly Parameters:
| |
| W-Standard W- OFA Exxon Fuel Assembly 14x14 14x14 14x14 Rods per Assembly 179 179 179 Clad O.D. - inch 0.422 0.4 0.424 No. Of guide Tubes 16 16 16 Guide Tube O.D. - in 0.539 0.528 0.524 No. Of Instrument Tube 1 1 1 Instrument Tube O.D. - in 0.422 0.399 0.424 Also using: p = 9.345 x 10'b-sec'/ in'
| |
| = 158.5 in (rod and tubes length taken as full length of rack)
| |
| R, = rod or tube (O.D. /2) we obtain, the M-hydrodynamic masses for the fuel coupling, and result are summarized at the end of section.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 121
| |
| | |
| M, = mass of fluid displaced by the inner body
| |
| = this is same as M for long concentric cylinders with R, << R2 M, = mass of fluid inside the outer body in the absence of the inner body
| |
| = area x height x fluid density For ATEA racks (Type 2, 3 or 4) inside fuel cell dimension 8.1417 in For U.S. Tool & Die Racks, inside fuel cell dimension is 8.113 in Height is 158.5 in Density of fluid is 9.345 x 10'b-sec'/
| |
| in'he results of M, M, and M, are summarized below for both ATEA and U.S. Tool Ec Die Racks:
| |
| Summary - Fuel to Rack Hydrodynamic Masses - lb-sec2/ in W-Standard W-OFA Exxon Fuel Fuel Fuel Mn 0.427 0.387 0.428 M, 0.427 0.387 0.428 M2 0.982 0.982 0.982 Consolidated Fuel Canisters Consolidated fuel storage consists of fuel rods stored within a closed canister. The hydrodynamic coupling to the cell is based upon the canister rather than the individual fuel rods.
| |
| For concentric long rectangular bodies, the hydrodynamic mass along x and y-directions is given by Singh-90 (Reference 3.38).
| |
| H=H p
| |
| 16 3
| |
| 53h w
| |
| where h = height of rectangular body
| |
| = 158.5 in p = density of fluid 9345x10-s lb seci/in'1-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 122
| |
| | |
| M, =(2b- w)'xhx p M, = (2b + w)' h x p The results for the consolidated fuel hydrodynamic masses are summarized with input parameters.
| |
| Outside dimension of consolidated fuel 8.0 x 8.0 in Inside dimension of ATEA rack fuel cell 8.1417 in Inside dimension of U.S. Tool & Die rack fuel cell 8.113 in Summary - Hydrodynamic coupling Masses for Consolidated Fuel - Each ATEA Rack U.S. Tool & Die Rack b 4.035 4.036 inch w 0.071 0.0715 inch M 73.27 91.39 lb-sec~ / in M, 0.948 0.948 lb-sec~ / in M~ 0.982 0.975 lb-sec' in 3.5.2.5.2
| |
| ~ ~ ~ Rack-to-Rack and Rack-to-Pool Hydrodynamic Coupling For eccentric long rectangular bodies, the hydrodynamic mass along x and y-directions is given by Singh-90 (Reference 3.38).
| |
| M~(HORZ'Z) =2phC C 3g~
| |
| +
| |
| C 3'~ +-2B Nz = Ph(2C - gz) 2b - I )
| |
| 2 H~ = ph(2C + g~) 2b + ( )
| |
| 2 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 123
| |
| | |
| pg2 91 g3 92 2B PLAN where h = height of rack p = density of fluid gi~ go~ g3 = gaps If g, gaps are different among North or South side of rack, the average gaps are used in the hydrodynamic mass calculations. For cases when there is overlap of two or more racks on the side of a rack, the weighted average gaps are used in the calculations.
| |
| Weighted Gaps For the idealization of gaps, ifmore than one rack with different gaps is in the vicinity of the rack under consideration, a weighted gap is used. The weighted gap is based on length of overlap between the racks.
| |
| L1 L2 G2 L3 G3 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 124
| |
| | |
| Weighted average gap Z LzGz Z Li Table 3.5-9 summarizes geometric parameters and also the weighted gaps.
| |
| Weighted Average Rack Coupling The hydrodynamic mass coupling between rack to rack motion under seismic events is based on weighted mass coupling. The weighted mass is based on length of overlap between the racks.
| |
| Case 1 Case 2 LS LI L4 L2 L3 L7 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 125
| |
| | |
| Using Effective Coupled Lengths for Hydrodynamic Mass:
| |
| HHs L~
| |
| L
| |
| + HHz L~
| |
| L5 M
| |
| Hg I~
| |
| g
| |
| +H Hp HH)
| |
| ~ 2 MHg L~
| |
| g
| |
| + MH4 L~
| |
| 7 M
| |
| 1,4 Tables 3.5-10 and -11 summarize hydrodynamic masses.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 126
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-9 Geometric Parameters for Hydrodynamic Mass Coupling - Summary Table Gaps at the Top of the Rack 4'.j',''-:::;-:.~;"'...Ga 's'''at: the':.To'::.'of-:.the, Rack"':'i.':::::..;>;-";.:','-'::.-'.:
| |
| g2
| |
| ::E,-",V,::!Length::: N-',S Length': %e'st,:'.'Gap North'::,Gap'::::.Ea'st:,'Gap'."'""''':-"::: ':::::::-"':"''::::South",Gap';
| |
| p ': ' 'y; ~'OX ~;%';.",;'.
| |
| 4':1n.':.! ll" 159 84.30 118.02 10.50 0.50 1.75 14.75 1 and T e4 159 84.30 127.21 10.50 0.50 1.75 5.53 159 . 84.30 118.02 9.75 15.25 1.25 0.50 2 and T e4 159 84.30 127.21 9.75 6.03 1.25 0.50 159 84.30 118.02 1.75 0.75 0.75 15.50 3 and T e4 159 84.30 127.21 1.75 0.75 0.75 6.28 159 84.30 118.02 1.25 14.25 0.63 0.75 4andT e4 159 84.30 127.21 1.25 5.03 0.63 0.75 159 84.30 118.02 0.75 0.75 0.84 17.00 SandT e4 159 84.30 127.21 0.75 0.75 0.84 7.78 159 84.30 118.02 0.63 12.75 3.18 0.75 6andT e4 159 84.30 127.21 0.63 3.53 3.21 0.75 7 or2A 159.68 92.73 67.5 0.84 1.36 96.77 7.34 8 or 2B 159.68 92.73 75.88 0.84 1.29 1.29 1.36 10 or 3A 159.68 91.93 64.23 3.59 1.93 1.20 1.21 13 or3B 159.68 91.93 64.23 1.20 1.93 3.45 1.21 9or3C 159.68 91.93 45.76 3.55 1.21 1.20 1.21 12 or 3D 159.68 91.93 45.76 1.20 1.21 3.51 1.21 11 or3E 159.68 91.92 55.77 1.29 1.21 3.48 96.39 Using these geometric parameters, the hydrodynamic masses are calculated for the rack to pool and rack to rack coupling. The results are summarized in the following table. The X-direction corresponds to East direction. The Y-direction corresponds to North direction.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 127
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-10 Rack Hydrodynamic Coupling Masses Standard Configuration (No Type 4 Racks Installed)
| |
| ::;:".: .':;',1b';se'c''/,''in''.'':'":."4>.:"::::,"'.'..;lb''ec~."/.'in''.':::".;:.'''ndividual
| |
| ::;"''j,',')",':.:'lb"se'c~ /,::iii'-;'; ~'";~.::: >";.,','.7:,:Ib;se'c,'.:/;in''.::,':::.,':.;:<.'.
| |
| Rack Coupling 1 3028.21 3139.21 147.83 191.19 2 3572.70 3223.44 148.83 189.42 3 5978.95 6570.86 147.83 173.17 4 7176.08 8284.38 147.83 170.33 5 7532.38 9648.98 147.83 173.27 6 6050.91 4735.82 147.83 172.18 7 (Rack 2A) 1807.09 3292.76 93.40 216.43 8 (Rack 2B) 4273.00 6308.24 105.00 111.16 9 (Rack 3C) 1426.57 3036.12 62.77 69.51 10 (Rack 3A) 2334.69 3226.97 88.11 97.23 11 (Rack 3E) 1668.51 3782.04 76.50 221.28 12 (Rack 3D) 1426.71 3045.61 62.77 69.48 13 (Rack 3B) 2337.26 3275.97 88.11 97.09 Weighted Average Rack Coupling Racks 1 and 2 3300.45 3181.32 147.83 190.30 Racks 1 and 3 4503.58 4855.03 147.83 182.18 Racks 2 and 4 5374.39 5753.91 147.83 179.88 Racks 3 and 5 6755.66 8109.92 147.83 173.22 Racks 3 and 4 6577.51 7427.62 147.83 171.75 Racks 4 and 6 . 6613.5 6510.10 147.83 171.26 Racks 5 and 6 6791.65 7192.40 147.83 172.73 Racks 5 and 7 2638.77 3797.74 76.52 135.35 Racks 5 and 8 ~
| |
| 3570.42 4900.17 78.34 87.16 Racks 6 and 10 2352.86 2421.95 70.37 79.72 Racks 6 and 9 1917.37 2460.45 60.80 69.02 Racks 6 and 8 901.66 1028.22 22.09 24.52 Racks 7 and 8 3040.04 4800.50 99.20 163.79 Racks 8 and 11 2970.75 5045.14 90.75 166.22 Racks 8 and 9 2849.78 4672.18 83.89 90.33 Racks 10 and 13 2335.97 3251.47 88.11 97.16 Racks 9 and 10 1880.63 3131.55 75.44 83.37 Racks 12 and 13 1881.98 3160.79 75.44 83.29 Racks 9 and 12 1426.64 3040.86 62.77 69.49 Racks 11 and 12 1547.61 3413.82 69.63 145.38 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 128
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-11 Rack Hydrodynamic Coupling Masses Extended Configuration (Type 4 Racks Installed)
| |
| -.',":.:.:.:;:;::,;lb:s'ec~,"'./':in ':':;-":,.",:, ':,~:""";::::::lb';sec,=/';in'.,".i;:",< .:i'~.,"":."1b."s'ec.',.'/ in':,''-'i;;,'
| |
| Individual Rack Coupling 5601.65 3288.11 159.34 191.15
| |
| .2' 5960.82 3363.23 159.34 189.38 8358.80 6843.52 159.34 173.13 4 10218.21 8646.03 159.34 170.30 5 9664.24 10012.09 159.34 173.23 6 10096.49 5003.73 159.34 172.20 7 (Rack 2A) 1807.09 3292.76 93.40 216.43 8 (Rack 2B) 4273.00 6308.24 105.00 111.16 9 (Rack 3C) 1426.57 3036.12 62.77 69.51 10 (Rack 3A) 2334.69 3226.97 88.11 97.23 11 (Rack 3E) 1668.51 3782.04 76.50 221.28 12 (Rack 3D) 1426.71 3045.61 62.77 69.48 13 (Rack 3B) 2337.26 3275.97 88.11 97.09 Weighted Average Rack Coupling Racks 1 and 2 5781.24 3325.67 159.34 190.26 Racks 1 and 3 6980.22 5065.82 159.34 182.14 Racks 2 and 4 8089.52 6004.63 159.34 179.84 Racks 3 and 5 9011.52 8427.81 159.34 173.18 Racks 3 and 4 9288.51 7744.78 159.34 171.71 Racks 4 and 6 10157.35 6824.88 159.34 171.25 Racks 5 and 6 9880.37 7507.91 159.34 172.72 Racks 5 and 7 3480.84 4316.44 89.19 154.41 Racks 5 and 8 3926.36 4803.67 78.25 83.90 Racks 6 and 10 3681.77 2859.61 83.74 91.50 Racks 6 and 9 2572.73 2439.58 60.73 66.47 Racks 6 and 8 928.71 690.69 20.23 22.07 Racks 7 and 8 3040.04 4800.50 99.20 163.79 Racks 8 and 11 2970.75 5045.14 90.75 166.22 Racks 8 and 9 2849.78 4672.18 83.89 90.33 Racks 10 and 13 2335.97 3251.47 88.11 97.16 Racks 9 and 10 1880.63 3131.55 75A4 83.37 Racks 12 and 13 1881.98 3160.79 75.44 83.29 Racks 9 and 12 1426.64 3040.86 62.77 69.49 Racks 11 and 12 1547.61 3413.82 69.63 145.38 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 129
| |
| | |
| 3.5.2.6 Seismic Time History Factor Determinations Approach Four Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and four Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) time histories are developed to evaluate the racks for the RG&E Ginna Spent Fuel Pool. The development of the time histories is documented in Section 3.5.1. Each time history is applied to a 3-D single rack model for Rack 8(2B), a 9x11 rack manufactured by ATEA. After applying each time history to the model, a multiplication factor is found that, when applied to the critical results of one of the time histories, would envelope the results produced when running the other three time histories. After the time history factors are determined for the SSE and OBE time histories, only the time histories for which factors have been calculated are used on the whole pool model. The calculated factors for SSE and OBE are then applied to the results of the evaluations.
| |
| SSE Time History Factor Table 3.5-12 lists key results of the single rack model evaluations for the four SSE time histories.
| |
| The last column of the table gives the results of multiplying the results of SSE1 by the calculated factor. These results provide verification that the results from all of the other SSE time histories are enveloped. The result from SSE1 which requires the highest enveloping factor is the horizontal rack load. The factor required to envelope the horizontal rack load &om SSE2 is:
| |
| Factor = 73,320/62,980 = 1.164 Thus, the enveloping factor determined for the SSE time histories is 1.20 x SSE1. Therefore, all SSE evaluations will be performed using SSE1. The factor of 1.20 is applied to all results taken from the evaluation.
| |
| The factor of 1.20 also envelopes a factor from the effects of an increase in rack height, see Section 3.5.3.1.7.
| |
| OBE Time History Factor Table 3.5-13 lists key results of the single rack model evaluations for the four OBE time histories. The last column of the table gives the results of multiplying the results of OBE4 by the calculated factor. These results provide verification that the results from all of the other OBE time histories are enveloped. The result from OBE4 which requires the highest enveloping factor is the horizontal rack load. The factor required to envelope the horizontal rack load from OBE1 is:
| |
| Factor = 32,420/29,810 = 1.088 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 130
| |
| | |
| Thus, the enveloping factor determined for the OBE time histories is 1.12 x OBE4. Therefore; all OBE evaluations will be performed using OBFA. The factor of 1.12 is applied to all results taken from the evaluation.
| |
| The factor of 1.12 also envelopes a factor from the effects of an increase in rack height, see Section 3.5.3.1.7.
| |
| Table 3.5-12 Summary of Determination of SSE Time History Factor (Using Rack S(2B) Loaded ivith Consolidated Fuel, mu=0.8)
| |
| ;":i4 S SEI'/san';,'; SSE2 -:;?'. 'SSE3
| |
| ; j;,:;:: i:;;.'..', SSE4,"..;;.": ':,::.:1"';20.*.,SSB1::.::
| |
| Single Model Leg 34,910 24,660 37,390 31,580 41,892 Horizontal Max. Leg Load Single (lbs.) Model Leg 138,000 122,700 129,000 127,300 165,600 Vertical Leg Total 322,800 307,100 320,200 307,100 387,360 Vertical Max. Rack Horizontal 62,980 73,320 71,190 59,000 75,576 Load (lbs.) Vertical 13,480 12,820 13,370 12,820 16,176 Max. Rack Moments Bending 6.645*10 6.267*10 7 001*10'.875*10~ 7 974*10~
| |
| (in.-lbs.)
| |
| Max. Impact Fuel to 12,950 12,710 11,050 11,740 15,540 Load (lbs.) Rack Displacement Horizontal 0.03354 0.02938 0.02765 0.02548 0.04025 of Leg (in.)
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 131
| |
| | |
| l Table 3.5-13 Summary of Determination of OBE Time History Factor (Using Rack S(2B) Loaded with Unconsolidated Fuel, mu=o.S)
| |
| :.Ij.,i:;:"..::~Item.:i,;::i'-::::;".'' ';;:":,"'i:;OBE1',ll""'! >N<"'.':,.OBE2':i')ti',: !agjOBB3,'%:,''~;:<N Il'l2.'...OBFA.'::
| |
| Single Model Leg 8,630 7,696 7,347 8,723 9,770 Horizontal Max. Leg Load Single (lbs.) Model Leg 64,440 62,410 59,740 63,090 70,661 Vertical Leg Total 159,400 157,700 156,400 156,500 175,280 Vertical Max. Rack Horizontal 32,420 25,590 26,500 29,810 33,387 Load (lbs.) Vertical 11,230 11,110 11,020 11,030 12,354 Max. Rack Moments Bending 3.382*10'.206*10' 070*10~ 3.114*10~ 3.488*10~
| |
| (in.-lbs.)
| |
| Max. Impact Fuel to Load (lbs.) 42,980 38,980 42,330 51,440 57,613 Rack Displacement Horizontal 0.008675 0.007697 0.007348 0.008731 0.009779 of Leg (in.)
| |
| 3.5.2.7 Rack Stiffness Sensitivity Study Statement of Concern In the July 1996 meeting between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (NRC), RG&E, and Framatome Cogema Fuels, the NRC expressed concerns about the stiffness of the rack structures.
| |
| The issue raised was that the rack stiffness used in the analytical models may not necessarily represent the actual stiffness of the rack. The difference in stiffness may exist because the rack stiffness in the model is based on a continuous structure, while the rack is made up of tubes connected by welded tabs. The NRC expected this method of fabrication to result in a structure with a potentially lower stiffness than that used in the structural analysis of the rack. The NRC recommended testing to verify that the rack stiffness is close to the stiffness used in the analyses.
| |
| The objectives of this study are to determine the difference in stiffness between a continuous structure and a segmented structure, ifany, and to show that the rack seismic loads and hence stresses are not sensitive to the rack stiffness.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 132
| |
| | |
| Resolution of Concern The approach taken to resolve this concern is to approximate the difference in stiffness between a continuous structure and a structure connected by tabs and then to determine the impact that the difference in stiffness would have on critical results of the rack analysis, such as the reaction forces on the pool floor, the moments generated in the rack, and the movement of the rack.
| |
| To determine the difference in stiffness, a continuous structure was modeled using ANSYS and loaded to calculate its stiffness. The finite element computer program ANSYS was verified against experimental test data. The model was then modified to separate the structure into segments which were then connected with tabs. The stiffness of the segmented structure connected by four tabs as in the actual rack design was found to be about 13.5% lower than the stiffness of the continuous structure.
| |
| Because the stiffness of the structure was lower for the segmented structure connected by tabs, the impact of this stiffness was examined. A model for dynamic analysis of a single rack was
| |
| - modified to have rack stiffnesses ranging &om 50% to 200% of the stiffness of the continuous structure. The model was of a free standing spent fuel rack which included rack to rack hydrodynamic coupling, rack to fuel gaps, and rack to fuel hydrodynamic coupling. Because the racks were free standing, the gaps and hydrodynamic coupling had a larger effect than rack stiffness on the loads, moments, and rack movements since there was rigid body motion.
| |
| These models were evaluated using a single specified safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) time history. The results of these analyses were then plotted as percentages of the values calculated using the stiffness of the continuous structure vs. the factor applied to the stiffness. The results plotted were the maximum total reaction load at the floor, the maximum horizontal displacement at two corners of the rack, and the maximum moments at the base of the rack. As can be seen in the following table and plot, the maximum reaction forces at the floor are essentially independent of the rack stiffness. The moments at the base of the rack showed slight dependence on the stiffness with the moments increasing with increasing stiffness. The rack displacements showed the greatest variation with changing stiffness, following the general trend of increasing displacement with increasing stiffness. Note that the displacements referred to are rack translations caused by fuel to rack impacts. A stiffer rack beam causes more energy from the impact to generate translation of the entire rack rather than bending of the rack beam.
| |
| Conclusions The comparison of a continuous structure and a segmented structure connected with tabs indicates that using tabs as the method of fabricating the rack willresult in a stiffness about 13.5% lower than that of a continuous structure. SSE analyses performed on a single rack model with stiffnesses ranging from 50% to 200% of the stiffness of a continuous structure indicates that the reaction loads at the floor remain constant, bending moments in the rack increase slightly with increasing stiffness, and rack displacements increase with increasing stiffness. These results are listed in the following table and are plotted in Figure 3.5-37.
| |
| 51-125876S-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 133
| |
| | |
| \~
| |
| Rack Stiffness Sensitivity Study Results
| |
| ;>Perceiita'ge:of:;;;;:
| |
| ';,'," Stiffn"e's's'."of,.'.":;::::
| |
| 'j~I:.';:,:Co'ntin'uou's",,::.''','I".
| |
| ',,':.";,s,'.'.:Structure':.;:::":.'-",',.'0%
| |
| 100% 85% 55% (0.018 in.)
| |
| 80% 1PP% 97% 73% (0.023 in.)
| |
| 1PP% 100% 100% 100% (0.032 in.)
| |
| 120% 1PP% 105% 124% (0.040 111.)
| |
| 150% 100% 108% 155% (0.049 in.)
| |
| 200% 100% 111% 176% (0.056 in.)
| |
| Results are based on fully consolidated rack loading and coefficient of friction of 0.8.
| |
| Displacements listed are given for comparison purposes only. For rack displacements and gap closures, see Section 3.5.3.1.14.
| |
| Rack stiffness is not a critical parameter in the determination of pool floor reaction loads, rack moments, or rack displacements. Therefore, experimental verification of the rack stiffness is unnecessary. The stiffness used in the model of the Ginna racks is slightly higher than the actual stiffness of the rack (based on the stiffness of a continuous structure rather than a segmented structure connected by tabs). The result of using a higher rack stiffness is higher bending moments and rack displacements, thus making the use of a higher than actual rack stiffness conservative for the seismic analyses.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 134
| |
| | |
| Percent of Value at Stiffness of Continuous Structure vs. Stiffness Factor Moments, Forces, and Displacements 2PP%
| |
| 15P Iv C
| |
| 100%
| |
| 0 I
| |
| 5p p
| |
| 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 Factor Applied to Stiffness
| |
| ~ SRSS Moments ~ Vertical Forces ~ Horizontal Displacement Figure 3.5-37 Percent of Value at Stiffness of Continuous Structure vs. Stiffness Factor
| |
| | |
| 7 L
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3 Structural Evaluation The RG&E Ginna Unit 1 Spent Fuel Storage system structure, i.e., new ATEA storage racks, the resident U.S. Tool and Die racks, spent fuel pool and liner, was evaluated for license application.
| |
| For all these structures, the normal, upset, faulted, and the hypothetical accident conditions were evaluated. The structural evaluation methods used proven design practices and current technology with innovative engineering principles. Details of these evaluations are provided in the next subsections.
| |
| 3.5.3.1 Normal, Upset and Faulted Conditions The Spent Fuel Storage System was designed to meet all applicable structural criteria for normal (Level A), upset (Level B) and faulted (Level D) conditions as defined in NUREG-0800, SRP 3.8.4, Appendix D. The dead weight, thermal, seismic and stuck fuel assembly loadings were considered. The load combinations were performed per SRP 3.8.4, Appendix D. The combined loads were used to assess storage rack structural integrity based on allowable stress limits provided for Class 3 component support of ASME Section III, Subsection NF of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Allrack components were shown to meet the ASME Section III structural requirements. In addition, the storage rack lifting stresses were shown to meet the NUREG-0612 lifting requirements of the heavy load liftin the nuclear power plant. The spent fuel pool evaluation was based on allowable stress limits provided in ACI 349-85. The spent fuel pool was shown to meet these stress requirements. The pool liner evaluation was based on stress limits provided in AISC-9th edition. The pool liner was shown to meet these stress requirements. The structural integrity was evaluated using conservative analytical methods.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.1 Various Inputs to the 3-D Single Rack and Whole Pool Finite Element Models 3.5.3.1.1.1 Rack Structural Properties Type 2 Rack General Information SS Wall Thickness = 0.08 in. SS thickness = 0.12 in.
| |
| Cell Size = Borated SS OD = 8.38 in.
| |
| Cell Height =
| |
| lb/in'orated 8.30 in.
| |
| 158.5 in. Borated SS Height = 145.7 in.
| |
| =
| |
| Density of SS 304 L 0.290 Density of Borated SS = 0.290 lb/in'ack Baseplate thickness = 1.18 in. Length of Rack Support Leg =13.70 in.
| |
| Cell bottom hole diameter = 3.74 in. Center-center dimension (pitch) = 8.43 in 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 136
| |
| | |
| Type 2 Rack Structural Properties y <.C
| |
| '."'';Size,'",,'d''.AV,-'E'(Iii)".':::i!;I~ength':ii-;:s''(in)',: .':I:V,-:.i'::(in,)',.
| |
| 7 2A 8x11 113.9 93.31 68.07 43,971 82,250 8 2B 9xll 129.5 93.31 76.46 64,009 95,291 Type 2 Rack Total Dry Weights
| |
| ":::Rack''':.; ;: Ra'ck ~ '':.';Total",:I ,:.',.',',:,:Total.::::,,:.::::::,:,,:";".:I.'Total'':.:;:.::; .".jTot'al::L'eg'a'nd':::,'. pTotal"Diy~
| |
| I,".'.,':.:No.':::; :::Type',::i ~,,":::,No,;"P,'..'':.:I'No!''"of.,::::. I:;,;Rack:,::Dry',':;', ;:Ba'sepIate'Dry".;: ',::Unco'ns'olidated:::j, "Cons'olidated:
| |
| .'4!., ':;',.Weigh't''(lb's';).," :''::.::Pu'e1: Wt::(1bs".:)':"':: >.'":',:'.:'Pu'el'::Wt.":,;"'; "::,',:
| |
| ;:.'':;j"':~;::(1bs'i')'~'::'j::"::-".,'A 12 88 14,072 3,038 127,600 232,170 2B 16 99 15,701 3,640 143,550 261,192 Type 2 Rack Total Wet Weights
| |
| ''.Rack:'.':::;,Rack'::: ,':Total.:::
| |
| '',,',':No;::::.,''::: '.",:Ty'pe!':
| |
| ';,":L'egs',-.
| |
| 7 2A 12 88 12,319 2,659 114,980 204,385 8 2B 16 99 13,747 3,187 129,353 229,933 Type 2 Rack Total Combined (Rack+Baseplate+Legs+Fuel) Wet and Dry Weights (in lbs.)
| |
| .'-:Rack::::: ".Rack'".: '~'otal! Dry.,:-.':.;;:,:;,,
| |
| I,;::~j',::',jTotal:::Diy.,'".".",.',:,"4'::,"'';;::,".:,':,.:::.,'';~Total':~Wet';::.''.!~.':;,'::::,.':Cori'solida'te'dI.:;I.".:::,;:',:!
| |
| >',.<~;-"',,',Total';:Wet';.':,.:::;,',','::;.
| |
| :~Type';;", :Un'consolIdate'd,; Uric'o'n's'olida'ted'k
| |
| ";:Combin'ed'.Wts"':": ,Coiribiried".;its':'::::,:;::,Combiiie'd',':,Wts'.':,:, i~'~Coiiibined;Wts:,.:,"::I 2A 144,710 249,280 129,958 219,363 2B 162,891 280,533 146,287 246,867 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 137
| |
| | |
| Type 2 Rack Maximum Wet and Dry Weights Per Support Leg (in lbs.)
| |
| ".;RackI~ ,::;::Rack'..
| |
| ',,';:: :'.T?y?pe,:',., '.'',Unco'ns'olid?ated:'.':,::,,':.:.:.:':Consoiida'te'd'':,::;:.'''..:.:.".-'.Uric'on':;At':-'.:;:on',:Oiie',:L''eg',.':,;;,'..:;:','.Total':Wet'.P-:.,.-:4;;,.::
| |
| ':-:,::;Corisolidate'd::.Wt.".':,'.:
| |
| No"..".':,'?:
| |
| ::M. '. '?
| |
| :;::;,'';:::':;:::i.:io'n':.On?e':';L'eg'-'!:.""'':;""::.",
| |
| gg.'?.".'? .?; i?.:::
| |
| 7 2A 12,059 20,773 10,830 18,280 8 2B 10,181 17,533 9,143 15,429 Type 3 Rack General Information.
| |
| SS Wall Thickness = 0.08 in. Borated SS thickness = 0.10 in.
| |
| Cell Size = 8.50 in. Borated SS OD = 8.34 in.
| |
| Cell Height = 162.0 in. Borated SS Height = 145.7 in.
| |
| Density of SS 304 L = 0.290 Density of Borated SS = 0.290 Baseplate thickness = 1.18 in lb/in'ack of Rack Support Leg = 13.70 in lb/in'ength Cell bottom hole diameter = 3.74 in. Center-center dimension (pitch) = 9.23 in Type 3 Rack Structural Properties
| |
| ''!No"''': ',;Rack'::, ";'::,!'';;:;;:,;Size''',.$;,;,;
| |
| %?'.',"..:Width'w,.-:E(jr'':j::: L'e'n'gth':N s'(in) ':::';I:;::N-,'s':;{iii,);:"~I)w'. E: (in,'.;)":
| |
| 'T","'.":,:::;:::::.g(in'.)::,.-?::.
| |
| 3C Sx10 66.2 92.34 46.18 12,079 47,402 10 3A 7x10 92.7 92.34 64.65 32,726 66,359 3E 6x10+2 84.8 92.34 56.19, 64.63 26,008 66,040 12 3D Sxlo 66.2 92.34 46.18 12,079 47,402 13 3B Sx10+12 82.1 92.34, 55.41 64.65, 46.18 25,998 55,479 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 138
| |
| | |
| Type 3 Rack Total Dry Weights
| |
| ".'Ra'ck",'; .,:,::Rack':,':,: 'jTotal., ,",.:;:;,),':Total'.':I ',"::::-Total>Leg''a'n'd';;,:::, ',::-';;Tot'al';::Dry':,''-:..":i'
| |
| .',jNo;:i',. ;IIType':,.l '.-: Rack::Dry)',-.', Baseplate",:Dry,.'.,': 'lUiiconsolidate'd"., Con's"olidat'e'd::
| |
| 5; N.,.,@bi.'::
| |
| "''of-":::"''-" :.::-Cells~",:.- ,"'.'-IVfeight';".':.,"-'-:::::,.':;%'eight.",(lbs.)';'',':; ''".Fuel)Wt'::(ebs')'~",:
| |
| <:I
| |
| ;. >Fu'el':Wt.'.,',:,:
| |
| ,'''',L'e'gs;,:.:,.
| |
| 3C 50 11,548 2,142 72,500 131,915 10 3A 12 70 16,232 2,958 101,500 184,681 3E 12 62 14,547 2,771 89,900 163,575 12 3D 50 11,548 2,142 72,500 131,915 13 3B 62 14,651 2,672 89,900 163,575 Type 3 Rack Total Wet Weights
| |
| ;;::Ra'ck''I:: ":::Rack::;:; :';,'Total ':i :.,":;Total':;':,:;;,':;;!~Total.:"':;:,:-:,'':::i ~:,"TotaI',L'eg:and~":; ::::iI-;',:.':,';.TotaI:::%'et':::!Ij': .~:;;,".;;:;
| |
| ;'.:::No.":,' ',Ty'pe'':i:,,:::;,:::,No."::,::".l ..NoI''of::;:::;,:;IRack;.Wet'~:,;;.;.,'!,.':"';Has'eplate>>':,,;'"'.;; Total::::;Wet:,'','":>Uii'co'n'salidated::':Cons'olidated'.;,:
| |
| ,'.:! Cells::::,::,.'..:,'::j':,,:WeightI.'',(,,:",''.,:Wet,'':%'eIght':',':::I". ;'"!Pu'e1'%'t;:(lbs'.::)':,':;::-.",i".Fuel::.','Wt!':,:,'"
| |
| 3C 8 50 10,111 1,875 65,330 116,128 10 3A 12 70 14,211 2,589 91,461 162,461 3E 12 62 12,735 2,425 81,009 143,999 12 3D 8 50 10,111 1,875 65,330 116,128 13 3B 11 62 12,827 2,340 81,009 143,999 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 139
| |
| | |
| Type 4 Rack Structural Properties 4A-F 1x10 25.9 8.30 84.56 292 15,471 Type 4 Rack Total Dry Weights
| |
| <<:;: <<<<'
| |
| ::;:::Rack";:, ; ';Total'::;;;: ,,:,.','.Total":ji"' <.',: I':,T<<otalIL'e'g>>'and:;:i::l..-'.;::,!::, Total'Dry',a,;:,".':,;:>I.:':;:::.;.':,.;;:;:.'.Total'.Dry,.:..:.;;.:,.",'"..".:
| |
| No-of-
| |
| "':<<Type'::. iNo',:",of::: ;:''';Cells,''.,:-.';:::';::;::I:i,::::;::Total:...:
| |
| '.:"':Rack:;Dry".il',:::::::,:;Weight;
| |
| ';:Ba's'eplate':Diy,'II. ',','Uncon>>solida'ted';:;: ':.';:;:.::,Cons'olidated':;;-:";
| |
| ;,':"':L'egs ":,;;,: ':.':
| |
| lWeiglit:,'(1bs') ll::,::;::;;::Fu'el.';Vt;:::;(Ibs",<<)'",'-': ''';.:Fuel!
| |
| Wt",{lb's')".'A-F
| |
| :;::;:::;;(lb's'),!,'.''.:,',',
| |
| 10 1,919 418 14,500 26,383 Type 4 Rack Total Wet Weights
| |
| : <<'.NY.
| |
| R'ack ':;: Total':.'.'::::::: l:,'":,Total;-.'.::::, ',.""::-:,,'-';:',:.Total'..";:,'::.";: .';.,Total,:L:e'g 'an'd<<': 5-";::;.;:!!To>>'t'aI':,Wet;.::::"..''.'"""":-'To't'al:%',et""'""
| |
| .:,;.Typ"'e '-.:::.:;of:::',::;::::;::: ''':;No'.:.":.'of::.;: :::::Rack':.Net':=>> ..':<<;.;:.;Baseplate;'!.',:;:;. :::Uiiconsolldate'd'':.'::. ':.:.,;::,:.Co'ris'olidate'd'::;:-'.;:'
| |
| ::,:L''egs'-'.:: ;"-."':,',Cells"'',". :.":::':::::-,':Weight"",::,': ::::"%et:Weight',;;<'.:, Fuell:Wt'..'(1bs '::'; .:,,"':Fu>>"el';:Wt::'>>(lbs.'-).".';
| |
| 'c'>>
| |
| )
| |
| '..'i:;:-"."(lbs')'.;.'.'.-:;j':;. ~j:::.:.","i:,"'.:':{lb's'<<)'.i'~,'i,,'',:.,':.'':"::.:;
| |
| 4A-F 2 10 1,680 365 13,066 23,266 Type 4 Rack Total Combined (Rack+Baseplate+Legs+Fuel) Wet and Dry Weights (in lbs.)
| |
| :IRack",::;;:; ,',:;:':;:":.;";;:-':;:;,Total::;:Dr'y',.",",.':"';,;.';-',',:;, '':::;:':.':%Total~Dry,;'::'! '.;:i ". Total:,Wet'-'','.';::;:;:<<~jj,.'i,:
| |
| ",'-'...:.'<<i.'-'':I::.".":,
| |
| i''':;Type,', i;-':;,Uncoiisolidated'j,::,;,
| |
| ;.', '.':.:;:.::.:;:;-,.:;.Co'nsolidated".',.','"i";.
| |
| ',',::,'-:",:.';.Co'inbirie,'':W>>ts."'.i,.'-',:;
| |
| i:., ;",.>Uiic'on's'olidate'd':l,:-''',: ".~g::'::'::Co'nsolidat'edNm."'.",i";::";!:
| |
| ~.;Coiiibined'.''Wts';-".'.'',':,'8,720
| |
| -.".:,Co'nlbi'n>>edIWts'::'.':::.:: i'.;.'.Coinbiiied':Wtsii",. ':
| |
| 4A-F 16,837 15,111 25,311 Type 4 Rack Maximum Wet and Dry Weights Per Support Leg (in lbs.)
| |
| <):.:-.'! j,:';Total:;:.,Wet",'::<<-::''"-"::
| |
| ::;;:Ty'pe,'.i';..:::::,.i-'::.;-;:.Uriconsoli'dated'"'';::-:;:;-::;:. "',.Co'nsolld'ated',%t:.';oii'.;:: .;,';..;;-,',Unc'o'n's'olidated:~i'. <<:..Conso1idat'e'd'~>>Wt'':o'n>>
| |
| (><<r '.%.q.:z'<<s<<<<'pr~~g>>>><<gyp<<,:.j,>>.'
| |
| :;::,:.Wt'.".:on",Oii'e'Leg<<':;":":," 'jg,<<gij,':;:.'...<<:::,One;L'eg;,".:"::<..:,''.;','p:";i 4A-F 8,419 14,360 7,556 12,656 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 141
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ ay 3.5.3.1.1.2 Fuel Structural Properties 3.5.3.1.1.2.1 Consolidated Fuel Canister Structural Properties The consolidated fuel canister is represented by a beam element in the seismic analysis. Both the structural canister and the 358 fuel rods are represented by a single beam (single A, I and E).
| |
| Since the canister (304 SS) and the fuel cladding (Zircaloy) are fabricated of different materials, the equivalent A,z and I,~ are calculated for a beam with E of the canister.
| |
| Outside Length of Fuel Canister = 8.00 in.
| |
| Canister Thickness = 0.093 in.
| |
| Inside Length of Fuel Canister/Divider Plate Length = 7.814 in.
| |
| Divider Plate Width = 0.093 in.
| |
| Area of Canister = 3.6681 in~
| |
| Average Moment of Inertia of Canister = 32.5031 in4 The elastic modulus of the canister material (304SS) = 27.87 x 10'si.
| |
| Fuel Rod Structural Properties Fuel Cladding Outer Diameter = 0.424 in. (Exxon)
| |
| Fuel Cladding Thickness = 0.03 in. (Exxon)
| |
| Number of Rods = 358 Area of Fuel Cladding = 13.2938 of Inertia of Cladding = 0.2595 in4 in'omentum The elastic modulus of the fuel rod cladding (Zircaloy) is only 12 x 10'si.
| |
| Effective Cross-Section Properties of Consolidated Canister The individual properties of the fuel cladding and the consolidated canister are used to calculate the combined cross-section properties as follow. The elastic modulus of the canister is used for the beam representation in the seismic analysis.
| |
| Effective Area Ag (Ef/ E,) Ar+ A, = 9.3920 in Effective Moment of Inertia I,A = (Er/E,)ir +I, = 32.6148 in Where: E< = Fuel Cladding Elastic Modulus, 12 x 10'si A, = Fuel Cladding Cross Sectional Area = 13.2938 Fuel Cladding Moment of Inertia = 0.2595 in'<=
| |
| = Canister Elastic Modulus, 27.87 x 10'si in',
| |
| A, = Canister Cross Sectional Area = 3.6681 in~
| |
| I, = Canister Moment of Inertia = 32.5031 in4 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 142
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.1.2.2 Fuel Assembly Structural Properties The following structural properties were used in the rack analysis to represent the fuel assembly.
| |
| The properties envelope Exxon's and Westinghouse's (standard and optimized) fuel assemblies.
| |
| Each fuel assembly represents 179 fuel rods, 16 guide tubes, and 1 instrument tube. The properties closely resemble the previous analysis (Reference 3.25, section 5.10).
| |
| Fuel Assembly's Cross Sectional Area = 7.1419 Assembly's Beam Shear Factor Used in ANSYS = 1.89 in'uel Fuel Assembly's Area Moment of Inertia = 2.17 in4 The Elastic Modulus of the Fuel Assembly (Zircaloy) = 12.0 x 10'si.
| |
| Fuel Assembly's Width = 7.763 in Fuel Assembly Wet Weight = 1306.6 lbs (per assembly) 3.5.3.1.1.3 Interface Stiffness Between Fuel and Rack The calculations were performed to generate the interface stiffness between the fuel and rack cells. The interface of interest was the impact of the upper end fitting with the stainless steel tube of the rack. This stiffness was calculated using a plate finite element model of a single cell and computer program ANSYS 5.2. A pressure load was applied in the area of contact between the upper end fitting and the cell wall while constraints prevent beam bending of the cell. The stiffness desired was only the local effect because the beams in the model already account for beam deflection. The stiffness was then determined by dividing the total load applied by the average deflection at the top edge of the cell wall.
| |
| Contact area between upper end fitting and cell wall:
| |
| Type 1 (Existing Racks)
| |
| Cell Height = 159 in.
| |
| Outside Tube Width = 8.43 in.
| |
| Tube Wall Thickness = 0.090 in.
| |
| Types 2 and 3 (New ATEA Racks):
| |
| Cell Height: Type 2 = 158.5 in.
| |
| Type 3 = 162 in.
| |
| Inside Tube Width: Type 2 = 8.1417 in.
| |
| Type 3 = 8.3386 in.
| |
| Tube Wall Thickness = 0.07874 in.
| |
| Fuel Assembly Heights Exxon - 160.13 in. Westinghouse OFA - 159.710 in.
| |
| Upper End Fitting Heights Exxon - 6.865 in. Westinghouse OFA - 3.480 in.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 143
| |
| | |
| 4 Elevation of beginning of contact between upper end fitting and cell wall:
| |
| Exxon: h = 153.265 in.
| |
| Westinghouse OFA: h = 156.230 in.
| |
| The model used was constructed of shell elements which were placed at the midplane of the tube walls. In the type 1 racks, there was a tube for each fuel assembly. Therefore, the load was applied to only one side of the cell. For the type 2 and 3 racks, there was one tube for every two fuel assemblies. Therefore, the load was applied in the same direction on opposite sides of the tube.
| |
| The deflections were generated from the finite element model. The stiffness was then determined by dividing the total load applied by the average deflection at the top edge of the cell wall, which is summarized below:
| |
| Fuel Cell Impact Stiffness summary:
| |
| Type 1 (Existing U.S. Tool & Die Racks): 4449 lb/in.
| |
| Type 2 and Type 4 (New ATEA Racks): 7036 lb/in.
| |
| Type 3 (New ATEA Racks): 6595 lb/in.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.1.4 Damping Structural damping was specified in the seismic analysis. The computer program ANSYS provided five choices (or five forms) to input damping values. Among them Rayleigh Damping (also called as alpha and beta damping) method was used in the Ginna seismic analysis, where The Damping Matrix. [C] = a[M]+ P[iq The values of a and P are not generally known directly, but can be calculated from modal damping ratios, $ i. Where $ i is the ratio of actual damping to critical damping for a particular mode of vibration, i. Ifoi; is the natural circular frequency of mode i, a and P satisfy the relation:
| |
| a
| |
| +
| |
| P, I
| |
| : 26) I 2 since 6) = 2 7r I fI a
| |
| 4 mfI
| |
| +of P 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 144
| |
| | |
| Only one set of a and I3 are input in an analysis, so one needs to select the dominant frequency active in that load step, to calculate u and I3. In the storage rack seismic analysis, the fuel assembly impact was dominant. For that reason, the fuel assembly &equencies were used in the calculations of u and P values. Also, it was considered that the first three modes of the fuel assembly were important in the seismic analysis. The values for n and P were developed for first three modes of fuel assembly frequencies.
| |
| The damping (gi) values were taken &om U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 (Reference 3.11), for welded steel structure. The u and P values were developed for both OBE and SSE loadings using fuel frequencies and Regulatory guide damping.
| |
| Fuel Assembly:
| |
| First mode frequency is f; = 3 Hz (Page 19, U.S. Tool Ec Die Seismic Report, Reference 3.25) j'=c g EI 8'"
| |
| For hinged-free beam:
| |
| (Mark's Handbook 7th Edition Page 5-101, Reference 3.33)
| |
| Where Cn = 2.45 for first mode hinged-free beam, and Cn = 16.6 for third mode hinged free beam.
| |
| f~ =
| |
| Using this the third mode frequency is 16.6 2.45 3
| |
| = 20.3 hz Using damping values from U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 for welded steel structure:
| |
| (pgp =2%01'02
| |
| =4% ol'.04 Mode Frequency g damping
| |
| +gg~er QJK 3 0.02 0.04 20.3 0.02 0.04 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 145
| |
| | |
| J For OBE:
| |
| Mode 1 0.02 =
| |
| 4zr3 a+
| |
| 1 mr 3r P 1
| |
| @Mode 3 0.02 = a + xx 20.3 x P 4 7t r 20.3 Solving: a = 0.6568 and P
| |
| = 2.7323 x 10~
| |
| For SSE:
| |
| Similiarly solving for SSE:
| |
| a = 1.3136 and P
| |
| = 5.4647 x 10~
| |
| Summary:
| |
| a and P values for damping:
| |
| OBE a = 0.6568 P =2.7323 x 10~
| |
| SSE a = 1.3136 P
| |
| = 5.4647 x 10" 3.5.3.1.1.5 Perforated Plates The bottom plates for the spent fuel storage racks are plates with flow holes. The equivalent homogeneous plate was idealized for plates with circular holes arranged in square pattern. The plate thickness was kept the same in the analysis. The Young's Modulus (E') and Poisson's Ratio (v') was modified to reflect square pattern perforation in the plate. ASME Section III, Appendix A, Article A-8000 addresses the perforated plate. However, the Article A-8000 only addresses the holes in array of equilateral triangle.
| |
| The Welding Research Council Bulletin ¹151, June 1970 (Reference 3.28) titled, "Further Theoretical Treatment of Perforated Plates with Square Penetration Pattern" was used. This bulletin addressed the loading in pitch and diagonal direction. For the seismic analyses, the pitch direction loading was more appropriate and was used.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 146
| |
| | |
| 2h 2R Nomenclature:
| |
| h/R Ligament efficiency E Young's Modulus of material E'ffective Young's Modulus of perforated plate with the same thickness v'ffective Poisson's ratio of p erforated plate with the same thickness Type 2 and Type 4 (ATEA) Racks - Perforated Plate Thickness of plate t = 1.18 in Flow hole size 3.74 in Rectangular Pitch 2R = 8.43 in Width of ligament 2h = Pitch - Hole diameter
| |
| = 8.43 - 3.74
| |
| = 4.69 in Ligament ef5ciency h/R = 4.69/ 8.43
| |
| = 0.56 From Figure 3 of WRCB 8151 for loading in pitch direction:
| |
| 0.68 and v' 02&
| |
| E 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 147
| |
| | |
| Type 3 (ATRA) Rack - Perforated Plate Thickness of plate t= 1.18 in Flow hole size 3.74 in Rectangular Pitch 2R=9.23 in Width of ligament 2h = Pitch - Hole diameter
| |
| = 9.23 - 3.74
| |
| = 5.49 in Ligament efficiency h / R = 5.49/9.23
| |
| = 0.59 From Figure 3 of WRCB ¹151 for loading in pitch direction:
| |
| E'.72 E
| |
| and v' 0.285 Summary of Perforated Plates For perforated plates, using same thickness as drawing, the equivalent E'oung's Modulus and equivalent v'oisson's Ratio for homogeneous idealization is as follows. These values were used in the stress analysis of the perforated plates.
| |
| Plate Thickness E'/E V in ATEA Type 2 Rack 1.18 0.68 0.28 ATEA Type 3 Rack 1.18 0.72 0.285 ATEA Type 4 Rack 1.18 0.68 0.28 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 14S
| |
| | |
| 4 - 1 Iw 5
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.2 Rack Tube Connecting Tabs and Tube Retainer Plate Welds The tab plates are welded to rack cells (tubes) in order to maintain the structural integrity of the rack.
| |
| The primary function of tabs is to provide a transfer of the shear flow between the tubes. In ATEA racks, mutually perpendicular pairs of tabs are welded to adjacent interior stainless tubes. For both type 2 and type 3 racks, there are 4 pairs of uniformly spaced tabs per each interior tube edge.
| |
| Tab stresses are derived from the following three stress components:
| |
| a) Interior rack beam loads resulting from seismic full pool rack analyses. Base plate shear force components are assumed to act as uniformly distributed loads along rack height, and develop shear stresses acting upon tabs. Resultant interior rack bending moments induce normal stresses in rack tubes, but not in tabs which are exposed to shear only. The rack forces and moments are provided from the full lop Kook pool runs. Pione IIz b) Rack-to-fuel beam (regular fuel assembly or consolidated fuel canister) impact loads. Depending on an impact direction relative I
| |
| to tab orientation, two impact models are considered. Section ~
| |
| 3.5.3.1.2.2 describes the rack to fuel beam impact models in more detail. Obtained tab loads are superimposed to the condition I
| |
| "a)" shear stresses. Note that the internal rack force and moment resultants obtained from the full pool analyses are reflected in I I
| |
| the "a" tab shear stress components calculation. Impact loads Resvttont Siose Peyote Seisin@ Looos also produce normal (axial) stresses in tabs, as well as bending moment in both tabs and tab welds.
| |
| c) Thermally induced stresses due to "Normal - To" and "Abnormal
| |
| - Ta" thermal conditions. Section 3.5.3.1.10 covers thermal stress calculation. Depending on the load combinations, thermal stresses for the two conditions are superimposed to the combined "a" and "b" stresses.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.2.1 Tab/Weld Stresses due to Seismic Loads This section evaluates the maximum shear stresses developed in rack tubes interconnecting tabs, developed as a result of seismic rack shear forces Fx and Fy. Assuming clamped simple beam as an equivalent of rack tubes, seismic shear force resultants Fx and Fy are considered uniformly distributed across the rack tube height. At any rack tube cross-section parallel to the base plate, parabolic shear stress distribution is developed. Maximum shear stresses occur nearby the base
| |
| =
| |
| plate, i.e. in the lowest tab group, and also along the rack tube cross section neutral axes:
| |
| V I'(Zt) Q 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 150
| |
| | |
| A )
| |
| * 4 ~<<
| |
| where: V Rack shear load resultant, Fx or Fy.
| |
| I Moment of inertia for a rack tubes cross section about its principal axes perpendicular to the shear force (V) direction.
| |
| First moment of inertia at the neutral axis location of the rack tubes cross section.
| |
| zt Cumulative tab thickness, for all tubes along the neutral axis to the shear force direction.
| |
| Extreme OBE load case is number 8, with maximum shear loads developed in rack 3E (¹11):
| |
| Fx = 51,930 lbs and Fy = 20,820 lbs; (section 3.5.3.1.8)
| |
| Extreme SSE load case is number 3, with maximum shear loads developed in rack 2B (¹8):
| |
| Fx = 98,880 lbs and Fy = 60,740 lbs; (section 3.5.3.1.8)
| |
| Cross section properties for racks 3E(¹11) and 2B(¹8) are listed in the table below:
| |
| .'ATEA'~Rack~;.j,.:~i':3E;:(¹II)''''':;.''':.::!5'',"-"28;(¹8)k',"''"':
| |
| t [in] 0.0787 0.0591 Ix [in4] 31,335 75,257 Iy [in' 77,073 110,201 Qx [in~] 1,073 1,506.5 Qy [in' 607.8 1,222.7 (zt) St 8t (zt) 9t 10t Maximum Tab use Metal) Shear Stresses for OBE Case Seismic stress enveloping factor for OBE cases is f=1.12. The shear stresses are:
| |
| I'zg) 77,073x(5x0.0787)
| |
| = 2,058 p.s.i.
| |
| v v 20,820 607.8 7 (zt:)
| |
| > >2 31,335x (9x0.0787) 639 g.s.i.
| |
| Combined tab shear stress acting in vertical-Z direction is
| |
| 'K = 'K + 'r = 2g 697 g ski+
| |
| ~
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 151
| |
| | |
| Maximum Tab Pase Metal) Shear Stresses for SSE Case Seismic stress enveloping factor for SSE cases is f=1.20 The shear stresses are:
| |
| z > 98 I 880 1< 506 5 I (Zt)110/201
| |
| ~
| |
| 1 20 3 431 (8 0.0591) f I(Zy 5')
| |
| 1 20 60,740 1,222 7 75, 257 (10 0. 0591)
| |
| ~
| |
| 2,004 p.s.i .
| |
| Combined tab shear stress acting in vertical-Z direction is
| |
| = 5,435 p.s.i.
| |
| Maximum Weld Stresses Tabs are welded to the tubes via fillet welds, with the following effective weld throats:
| |
| Type 2 tabs: a = 0.8 mm = 0.0315" Type 3 tabs: a = 1.2 mm = 0.0472" Weld stresses can be obtained by linearly scaling tab ~ shear stress, acting in vertical-Z direction, due to combined influence of Fx and Fy shear forces:
| |
| Rack ¹8 (type 2): (~ )= (~ )~ t/a = (x ), 1.5/0.8 = 1.875 (~~~
| |
| Rack ¹11 (type 3): (~ )= (~~~ t/a = (x )2.0/1.2 = 1.667 (~ )~
| |
| Results are summarized in the table below
| |
| -;."':.'-::Sh'ear','St'r'esse's''.:,- :;:-';::;OBK.";(Rack',¹ll):.;:::-,:::I, !,-:SSE'::,(Rack':¹8)'';;:
| |
| (< )~ Ipsil 2,697 5,435 (c~ [psi] 5,057 9,058
| |
| ~ Estimated stresses are conservative, since maximum of the two component shear forces Fx and Fy may not occur at the same time instant.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.2.2 Tab/Weld Stresses due to Fuel-to-Tube Impact This section discusses a tab strength when a fuel assembly or consolidated canister impacts a rack tube. The impact load is further transmitted through the set of tab pairs to the adjacent tubes. Maximum fuel to rack beams cumulative impact loads for new ATEA racks are listed in Section 3.5.3.1.8:
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 152
| |
| | |
| I V
| |
| OBE: 811 lbs x 1.12 (stress enveloping factor) = 908 lbs SSE: 1,331 lbs x 1.20 (stress enveloping factor) = 1,597 Ibs Considering tab and tab-to-tube welds strength, two possible impact scenarios are distinguished:
| |
| a) Longitudinal tab impact b) Lateral tab impact A) Longitudinal rab impact refer to a case where the impact force is transmitted along the tab, so that the force direction is parallel to the tab plane. Each stainless steel tube corner is connected to its neighboring SS tubes with a set of tab pairs, mutually perpendicular to each other. This design enables transmission of fuel to rack tubes impacts in either X or Y directions. This analysis also conservatively assumes that series of tabs perpendicular to the assumed impact direction do not contribute as stress bearing elements. Actual stresses in longitudinal tabs are therefore lower than predicted. Figure 3.5-38 depicts top view of a pair of SS tubes connected with a tab set parallel to the direction of the impacting force, assumed here to act horizontally.
| |
| Figure 3.5-38 Longitudinal Tab Impact Model Type 2 Tab ype 3 o.b Gap width:
| |
| Type 2:
| |
| d =0.0717" Type 3:
| |
| d=0.657" A finite element model of the rack tube with integral tabs is constructed to obtain impact load distribution across all tube tabs. Impact resultants are obtained for all tube model tabs, and are based on 1,000 lbs total impact force. Maximum resultant impact reactions acting upon a single tab for type 2 and 3 rack tubes are then applied to a single tab finite element model with neighboring SS tubes, as shown in Fig.3.5-38. Tab model consists of 3 shell finite elements, while half of an each SS tube side is discretized into six shell elements. Tab to tube welds are modeled so that welded tab edges share common edges of the corresponding SS tube finite elements. Obtained stress reactions used for tab (base metal) and weld strength qualification are listed in the table below:
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 153
| |
| | |
| Fx [Ibs] 215.3 Fy [lbs] 45.3 110.3 Fz [Ibs] 9.5 58.4 Mx [in-lbs] negligible negligible My [in-lbs] 21.6 136 Mz [in-lbs] 21.38 41.32 Local tab coordinate system where the force and moment components are defined is shown in the sketch below:
| |
| fz I
| |
| I Overall tab length:
| |
| type 2: L = 1.3487" type 3: L = 2.329" I
| |
| I y Tab height: h = 7.0866" l ~ Tab thickness:
| |
| type 2: t = 0.0591" I type 3: t = 0.0787" I
| |
| Tab weld throat:
| |
| I type 2: t = 0.0315" type 3: t = 0.0472" The following stress components are considered:
| |
| a) membrane stress a - tab cross section perpendicular to x-axis.
| |
| b) average shear x = V/A; where V = ((F)~+(FQ~)'", and A = h t c) normal stress o>> - due M: GI,y Myh/2Iy where I= h't/12 d) normal stress ob, from single tab finite element model 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 154
| |
| | |
| - Total normal stress: a = om + sly + Gpz
| |
| - Maximum principal stress: o, = 1/2[a + (o +4m')'"]
| |
| a) average shear ~ = V/A; where V = ((F) +(F)'+(Fg')'", and A = h a b) normal stress a>> - due M: a,y My h/21y where I= h'a/12 c) normal stress 0- from single tab finite element model, scaled for the throat thickness
| |
| - Total normal stress: a = q,+ a
| |
| - Maximum principal stress: a, = 1/2[a + (o +4~ )'"]
| |
| Results for type 2 and 3 tabs and welds are tabulated below:
| |
| 'Stress':,Com'ponents::.':,';:;,'Ba'se":;Metal::,(Tab):.";.;.':.'",~
| |
| ::;::;:":,:'::::,:T'y'pe',:2~,':m,:.''.,'::,XI,-::-,'..Yy'pe)3:.;:~::. "I.',~Type:,:2 ";::,::,;::,:::;;Type::3;,',:,
| |
| Membrane - o. 726.3 444.7 N/A N/A Avg.shear - ~ 110.5 224 1377.7 745 Normal - ab 25.9 206.5 82 344.2 Normal - a 2901 4961 4685.5 8268 Normal - a 3653 5612 4768 8613 Principal - a, 3656 5621 5138 8677 B) Lateral tab impact relates to tab strength in a situation where fuel assembly or consolidated canister impacts a borated stainless steel (BSS) tube in which case the impact load can be further transmitted to a tab interconnecting adjacent stainless steel (SS) tubes. Typical layout is shown in Fig.3.5-39, in case of the type 2 rack tabs. This consideration is not fully applicable to the type 3 rack tabs, due to the existence of belt connectors that bridge BSS to adjacent SS cell tubes for load transmission.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 155
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-39 Lateral Tab Impact Model Type 2 Rack Tab Impact Model Impact direction Characteristic dimensions:
| |
| BSS a = 0.485 in b = 0.096 in c = 0.800 in Tab thickness t=0.0591" (1.5 mm)
| |
| Tab length I =7.087" (180 mm)
| |
| NODE 2 Cob 0~
| |
| F'filet weld The tab is modeled as a beam clamped at both ends (weld locations, nodes 1 and 4) and simply supported at node 2, the point where surface contact between the tab and the SS tube wall ends.
| |
| BSS tube is assumed to impact the tab at the point marked as node 3. For this twice statically indeterminate beam, a three beam segment finite element model was made (ANSYS) with a vertical unit load P=1 lbs, acting in the assumed impact direction. The following results were obtained:
| |
| Shear Force [Ibs] (*) 0.145*P -1.077*P P -0.077*P Bending Moment [in-lbs] 0.0248*P 0.0496*P 0.039*P 0.0226*P
| |
| (*) positive shear force direction is assumed to be in direction of applied P, ie. downward.
| |
| The largest bending moment will be developed at node 2, if P reaches limit value P, causing yielding of the tab cross section. The corresponding bending moment limit is:
| |
| Hl =a-Y bt2
| |
| = 143.3 in-lbs 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 156
| |
| | |
| where a is the tab material yield strength (21.3 ksi for SS 304L, taken at 150'F). Hence, the limit load is then P= M/ 0.0496 = 2,888 lbs. The average shear at that cross section can be estimated as E = (0.145+1.077)P/ (bt) = 8,343 psi < 9,420 psi (Service Level A or B Stress Acceptance Criteria for pure shear). The maximum cumulative impact loads between fuel and rack beam, for the new'TEA racks are for both OBE and SSE conditions less than limit load estimated value P..Hence, it is concluded that the type 2 rack tabs >vill not undergo permanent if deformation impacted by an adjacent loaded BSS tube. This consideration excludes the fact that only part of the above expected impact loads would be transmitted to a single tab, as well as that the other BSS tube corner or edge would impact another tab group welded to the other SS tube corner.
| |
| The maximum combined stress developed in fillet weld at node 1 in Fig.3.5-39 is estimated as s=~o'+~'here o is the bending moment induced stress in weld, and x is the vertical shear at the same location. Hence, where M, =0.0248*(0.5*P;,), and P;, = the total BSS tube to tab impact load (listed above)
| |
| I = (ba)/12, the tab cross section moment of inertia (a=0.0315" or 0.8mm the weld throat)
| |
| V, =0.145 (0.5*P; )
| |
| A, = ba, the effective weld shear area (reduced to its throat)
| |
| Results are tabulated below:
| |
| . OBE P;, = 908 lbs cr = 9.65 ksi C= 0.295 ksi S = 9.654 ksi SSE P; = 1597 lbs a =16.9ksi C= 0.52 ksi S = 16.91 ksi The allowable fillet weld metal stresses are 21 ksi for Service Level A (OBE), and 31.5 ksi for Service Level D (SSE). Therefore, tab welds can withstand estimated impact forces with margin of safety greater than 86% (for both SSE and OBE conditions).
| |
| Summary of the mechanically induced tab stresses 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 157
| |
| | |
| 0 Superimposed loading conditions are:
| |
| : 1) Seismically induced tab/weld stresses (Section 3.5.3.1.2.1).
| |
| 2a) Stresses due to the longitudinal impact (Section 3.5.3.1.2.2.A). Stresses are obtained for 1,000 lbs total impact force, and scaling factors have to be applied for OBE (0.908) and SSE (1.6) conditions, 2b) Stresses due to the lateral impact (Section 3.5.3.1.2.2.B).
| |
| Results are summarized in the table below:
| |
| Table 3.5-14 Mechanical Tab/Weld Stresses
| |
| :,",Ty'pe,';-..'::.",,"".,"'Str'es's"::,Category':> :;::,OBE',:Stress",(psi)P>:;.',:.,"'::.:';~-:.',"':-'~::."
| |
| ;(I)'::":,+';:::,(m'a'x'.:,of.,'.2a::.or,'::2b);'::;;:;:,'',::,';:i''::::j(f)':;:+,:,: (max,::.,'of,;::2a''or,,:,:2b)':",.:'.:-::;:",:.i,:
| |
| Pm 726.3(2a)*0.908 =659.5 726.3(2a)*1.6=1162 Base Metal Pm+Pb 5621(2a)*0.908=5104 5621(2a)*1.6=8994 (Tab) or 5759(2b) or 10148(2b)
| |
| Avg. Shear 2697(1) + 5435(1) +
| |
| 1324(2b) or 224(2a)*0.908 2333(2b) or 224(2a)*1.6 Avg. Shear 5057(1) + 9058(1) +
| |
| 1377.7(2a)*0.908 =1251 1377.7(2a)*1.6 =2204 Weld or 295(2b) or 520(2b)
| |
| Pm+Pb 8677(2a)*0.908 =7879 8677(2a)*1.6 = 13883 or 9659(2b) or 9659(2b) 3.5.3.1.2.3 Thermal Stresses in Tabs/Welds Maximum thermally induced stresses in tabs and tab welds are taken from section 3.5.3.1.10.
| |
| An assumption is made that maximum'thermal stresses occurring in rack tubes conservatively envelop tab/welds thermal stresses. The rack thermal finite element model (section 3.5.3.1.10) assumes rigid connections between the rack tubes. In reality, the tubes are connected via tabs and tab-to-tube line welds. In return, the whole rack structure is more flexible than the assumed rack finite element model. Hence, the obtained stresses from the model envelop real thermal stresses in tabs and tab-to-tubes welds. Table 3.5-15 summarizes thermal stresses for Normal (To) and Abnormal (Ta) thermal conditions.
| |
| Table 3.5-15 Tabs/Welds Thermall Induced Stresses Str'ess''. [ysi]-:,::::;::::.',.',:;: ...".::::;::::;:::".:;.:>W'-",',:.'. ,,To',:''-.,"',coii'd'tioii;~~.';",jTa~-.-',:,~condition",
| |
| membrane 3,837 9,654 membrane + bending 9,856 9,803 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 158
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.2.4 Total Tab/Weld Stresses Stress components from summary table in Section 3.5.3.1.2.1, Tables 3.5-14 and 3.5-15 are superimposed in order to arrive to maximum estimated stresses in tabs and tab welds.
| |
| . Summarized values are reported in Section 3.5.3.3, Table 3.5-144. It is therefore concluded that tabs and tab welds has adequate margin against ASME code allowables for levels A,B and D.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.2.5 Borated Stainless Steel Retainer Plates Weld Stresses Type 2 and 3 Racks Borated Stainless Steel cells are held in place by 4 mm thick plates. The following calculations qualify the retainer plates and welds for maximum impact loadings (shear) on the rack cell. The following figure shows the retainer plate locations and dimensions.
| |
| 40 mm Top Retainer Plate 10 mm (typ 4 places) 7 fn SS. Tube BSS Plpte 10m (typ 3 place I
| |
| 3.12 In~
| |
| Bottom Retainer Plate 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 159
| |
| | |
| Type 2 and 3 Retainer Plate Dimensions:
| |
| e 'ner Plate
| |
| ~es Height (vertical) 7.87 in (200 mm) 1.18 in (30 mm)
| |
| Length (horizontal) 5.71 in (145 mm) 5.12 in (130 mm)
| |
| Plate Thickness 0.16 in (4 mm) 0.16 in (4 mm)
| |
| The retaining plates are the same size for both rack types 2 and 3.
| |
| The minimum weld throat equals 0.0313 inches (0.8 mm) for both top and bottom plates.
| |
| The total weld length required for the top retainer plate equals 3.15 inches (80 mm),
| |
| Aw = 0.10 in~
| |
| The total weld length for the bottom retainer plate equals 1.18 inches (30 mm), Aw = 0.04 in~.
| |
| The BSS's deadweight equals 164.9 lbs. Each lower retainer plate receives 165/4 or 41.25 lbs.
| |
| The maximum stresses result from a stuck fuel assembly accident condition where the total uplift force acting on all four sides of the BSS tube equals 2000 lbs. Each top retainer plate receives 1/4 of the uplift or 500 lbs. The stuck fuel assembly condition affects the upper retainer plate and occurs only in the Service Level B stresses.
| |
| For Service Level D stresses, a "g" value (acceleration) was determined for SSE. The maximum rack weight is rack number 8 (2B) equaling 246,867 lbs per section 3.5.3.1.1.1. The maximum SSE plus deadweight for rack 8 equals 322,400 (per section 3.5.3.1.5 for Load case 3). The ratio of the highest deadweight plus SSE over the rack deadweight gave an acceleration value of 1.31 g (includes deadweight). Using the time history factor of 1.2 gives a "g" value of 1.57.
| |
| Therefore, the SSE loading of the BSS cell (per plate) equals 41.25*1.57 = 64.8 lbs.
| |
| I Obtained stresses and corresponding allowables are summarized below:
| |
| Ba~el~e ad erv e ee Service Level A 1,031 psi 0.4*Sy = 9,260 psi Service Level B 5,000 psi 0.532~ Sy = 11,725 psi Service Level D 1,620 psi 0.42*Su = 28,120 psi Retainer Plates welds are shown qualified.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 160
| |
| | |
| 4 3.5.3.1.2.6 Rack Tube Buckling Strength and Tab Weld Spacing This section evaluates the strength of the Rochester Gas Ec Electric GINNA spent fuel ATEA rack tube against buckling requirements. This section demonstrates the compliance of Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix D, and ASME Section III, Subsection NF. The results are applicable to ATEA type 2, 3, and 4 racks.
| |
| Compressive stresses in rack tubes are evaluated at the lower, base plate level, as a result of combined action of bending moments about principal axes Mand Mand vertical inertial load F, (a,=F,/A, A-material cross section for all tubes), all due to seismic activity. Total stress thus obtained is scaled with the time history enveloping factor f,equal to 1.20 for SSE or 1.12 for OBE conditions (section 3.5.2.6), as 2 2
| |
| ~
| |
| X zX jl Y
| |
| Square root of sum of squares of each peak compressive load component is taken since generally they do not occur at the same time instant.
| |
| As depicted in the sketch shown below, the total compressive tube stress is evaluated for the farthest edge of the corner tube for each rack (distances xandy, measured with respect to shown principal coordinate system) . This ensures conservatism of calculated stresses. Cross section properties (tube racks) for all racks are summarized in the Table 3.5-16.
| |
| Corner Tube I
| |
| Xi I I
| |
| I Xct I Arbltror y Tube Rock's Bose Plote 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 161
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-16 Rack Cross-section Properties for Tubes Rack Xpr Ypr Ix-pr Iy-pr At Xct Yct
| |
| ¹ [in] [in] [in"4] [in"4] [in"2] [in] [in]
| |
| 7 46. 4 33.7 53,893 98,523 126. 2 46.37 33.72 8 46. 4 37.9 75,257 110,201 141. 1 46.37 37.94 9 46.2 23.1 16,308 59,240 76.2 46.15 23.08 10 11 46.1 46.1 32.3 35.5 41,407 31,335 81,057 77,073 104.1 94.7 46.15 32 '1 46.15 35.49 12 46. 2 23.1 16,308 59,240 76.2 46.15 23.08 13 42.7 29.4 33,486 69, 215 93.5 49.55 35.19 Note: Xpr X-location of Y (NS) principal axis
| |
| * Ypr Y-location of X (EW) principal axis
| |
| * Ix-pr Principal moment of inertia (tubes) about X axis Iy-pr Principal moment of inertia (tubes) about Y axis At Total cross section area (all tubes)
| |
| Xct Max.corner tube edge to base plate center distance in X Yct Max.corner tube edge to base plate center distance in Y
| |
| (*) principal axes are obtained for ensemble of all tubes in particular rack base plate Moments of inertia for all tubes in given rack are calculated via where n, is the total number of tubes for particular rack and I~," and I>'re principal tube moments of inertia, A, - material tube cross section and xy, - tube centroid location with respect to the principal coordinate system (as shown in the sketch above).
| |
| Obtained stresses for types 2 and 3 ATEA racks are listed in Table 3.5-17 for all load cases.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 162
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-17 Compressive Rack Corner Tube Stresses fpsi]
| |
| rack ¹ 7 10 12 13 Load Case
| |
| ¹ 1 4,286 4, 537 4, 137 4, 198 4, 997 3, 965 4, 941 2 3,671 4, 050 4, 160 3,724 4,436 -
| |
| 3,914 4, 663 3 5,675 5, 683 6, 979 5, 793 6, 393 6, 461 6, 964 4 4,140 4,477 4, 076 4, 071 4, 864 3, 947 5, 217 5 4,297 4, 600 4, 130 4, 318 5, 030 4, 060 S, 323 6 5,481 5, 674 5, 619 5,209 6, 143 6,238 6, 502 7 3,439 3, 689 3, 851 3,482 4,310 3,739 4, 609 8* 2,755 2, 966 4, 113 2, 767 4,543 4,446 4,214 9* 2, 188 2,294 3, 058 2, 431 2, 929 2, 838 2, 805 10* 2,487 2, 414 3, 129 2,308 2, 885 2, 872 2,730 11 2,789 650 6, 175 825 4,428 3,848 4, 653 12* 488 2, 108 2,986 642 4, 029 2, 925 3, 653
| |
| (*) OBE load cases.
| |
| Highest compressive stresses developed for service levels A and B (OBE condition) are from load case ¹8 for rack ¹11, where opgp 4,543 psi. In case of service level D (SSE condition),
| |
| the worst stresses are from load case ¹3 for rack ¹9, where ~E = 6,979 psi.
| |
| Per Reference 3.19 (ASME Section III, subsection NF3322 (c)(2) (eq.6a, for austenitic stainless steel), the allowable stress in compression for stainless steel gross section column member (for kLlr = 11.28(types 2dc4), Il.02 (type 3)) < 120 is Fe = S z 0.47 '44 kL /r 10.29 ksi (type 2 and 4) 12.31 ksi (type 3) where: S= 23.15 ksi T=150'F for SS tube material (ASME Section III, Appendix I) k= 1.0, compressive buckling coefficient (ASME Section III, subsection NF3322.2 (b)(1)), for braced frames L 37.9 [in], interconnecting tab welds spacing for tube's peripheral edges (type 3 rack) 3.36 [in], tube cross section radius of gyration (type 2 rack), 3.44 [in], tube cross section radius of gyration (type 3 rack) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 163
| |
| | |
| The tube radius of gyration is obtained from:
| |
| 3.36 in, for rack tube types 2 and 4 A 3.44 in, for type 3 rack tube where I= (2/3)h't=0.667x8.22'x0.0787=29.16 in', is the type 2 tube cross section moment of inertia, and its area is A=4ht = 2.59 in . Similarly for the type 3 rack, I=31.29 in', and A=2.65 in .
| |
| Gross tube cross section buckling is not controlling, since both aorta and ossa are lower than the allowable F,.
| |
| Local elastic buckling stress is evaluated from Reference 3.42, and in the case of type 2 and 3 rack tubes:
| |
| 9.24 ksi (types 2&4) 12(1 ~ )
| |
| A S.S2ksi(typc3) where: v, = 0.3, Poison's ratio for SS steel O 150'F t = 0.0787 [in], tube wall thickness h = 8.22 [in], tube side width (median line) (types 2&4 rack) 8.417 [in], tube side width (median line) (type 3 rack) k=4 Again, both ao~H and assH for rack types 2, 3 and 4 are lower than the corresponding critical stress limit a. Consequently, buckling is not a concern for Rochester Gas & Electric GINNA Unit 1 Spent Fuel racks, for given level of seismic conditions, and maximum tab welds peripheral tube spacing is adequate.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.2.7 Rack Tube Maximum Stress Evaluation In this section, maximum rack tube stresses are evaluated and compared with ASME code allowable stresses for Service Levels A, B and D.
| |
| In addition to axial (compressive) tube stresses, shear stresses are acting upon bottom tube ends.
| |
| It will be shown that shear stresses contribution is only a fraction of total tube stress. Therefore it is suQicient to consider shear loads for SSE condition (load case 83) acting upon rack 3C (89),
| |
| where the highest corner tube axial stress occurs. The obtained shear stresses conservatively envelope OBE induced shear stresses.
| |
| a) Shear stresses due to rack base plate seismic loads Fand F:
| |
| (F+x (F ) = 1240pst 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 164
| |
| | |
| where fTH = 1.20, time history enveloping factor for SSE condition x(Fg,x(F) - average shear stresses acting at the base plate level:
| |
| F x (F) 981.9 psi n 0.5A F
| |
| x(F ) 321.5 psi n,0. 5A where F= 65,050 lb and F= 21,300 lb (load case ¹3, rack ¹9, section 3.5.3.1.8.1)
| |
| A, = 2.65 in', the tube (type 3) cross section area (section 3.5.3.1.2.6).
| |
| Note that a reduction factor of 0.5 is used since each pair of neighboring tubes shares a common SS wall.
| |
| n, = Sx10 = 50, total number of tubes for rack ¹9 (3C) b) Shear stresses due to rack torsion M,:
| |
| 184.6 psi where M, = 221,000 in-lb (load case ¹3, rack ¹9, section 3.5.3.1.8.1) r = 52.6 in, the rack corner to center distance for rack ¹9 J = 75,548 in', torsional constant for rack ¹9 (= I+ I, Table 3.5-16)
| |
| Generally torsion adds little to the overall maximum tube stress. It is therefore conservatively taken xT=250 psi.
| |
| Combined shear stress is evaluated as a square root of sum of squares of the shear components:
| |
| 2 2 r r F+ r T 1,265 psi Principal tube (type 3 rack) stresses are now obtained:
| |
| a,~2 1/2
| |
| -1[az
| |
| = + a,+4x 2+ 2
| |
| ] 7,202 psi / -223 psi 2
| |
| where a, = assE = 6,979 psi, maximum axial tube (type 3) stress (Table 3.5-17).
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 165
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-18 (Cont'd)
| |
| D+L+E+ Ta (LevelB)
| |
| Primary Membrane 4,543 20,881 360 Primary Membrane 4,872 31,322 542
| |
| + Bending Range of Primary 14,675 44,080 200
| |
| + Secondary Average Primary Shear 1,265 9,420 644 D+L+E'+ Ta (LevelD)
| |
| Primary Membrane 6,979 26,448 279 Primary Membrane 7,202 39,672 450
| |
| + Bending Range of Primary 17,005 44,080 159
| |
| + Secondary Average Primary Shear 1,265 28,123 2123 3.5.3.1.3 Bottom of Rack Tube to Base Plate Welds k
| |
| This section demonstrates compliance of Rochester Gas Electric GINNA spent fuel storage racks with allowable base plate welds stress limits for service levels B and D, per ASME Section III, Subsection NF for Class 3 component supports.
| |
| Base Plate Welds Layout Square rack tubes are welded to the base plate via a pair of 2 mm fillet welds per designated rack tube sides. Total weld length per tube side varies from minimum 3.150 in (2x40 mm) to maximum 6.299 in (2x80 mm). Weld lengths are optimized so that adequate design factors are obtained for all new ATEA racks and all 12 load cases (both OBE (level B) and SSE (level D) conditions). Additional requirements specified actual weld lengths in 10 mm increments. Weld throat is taken to be 0.047 in (1.2 mm). Adopted weld lengths are:
| |
| Weld Type 1 L [mm] 40 50 60 70 80 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 167
| |
| | |
| ~ ~
| |
| Depending on the allowable stress limits lower design factors can be developed either in welds or in the base metal (rack tube material). Critical cross section for welds is assumed to be the throat area (throat width times weld length). In case of base metal, critical cross section is equal to a total weld length per tube side times the tube wall thickness. Base plate welds/base metal cross section properties for each rack are listed in the Table 3.5-19. For both welds and base metal, shear area represents total weld area for all welded rack tube sides, for all tubes of a particular rack. Same welds or base metal lines are taken into account for calculating their cross section principal moments of inertia. Positions of corresponding principal axes are also listed in the Table 3.5-19. So obtained cross section properties are used for stress calculations.
| |
| Table 3.5-19 Base Plate Welds Cross-section Properties for New ATRA Racks
| |
| ;:Rack::",:.j'.: '...Sh'ear''A'~[in~]:,".:::";';':,;::,"'"";::':Principal':;I'':[in4]','-'''-'':<:::,'~"". :.".',.'-.Princip'ai.I'-"''[in'.:]:',':::-.;-:::!<.'.;:..i ,,'::.Principal.'Axes~i
| |
| ;>Weld',::,::;::;,':::.':::::B'as'e'.i';:::,.''',:",::::,: ':Weld.;:.:.':.''::,':::::;::.'.," lBa'se':.;'-':,'.""'-"'="-"""-" x:;.[in],P'. y. [in]:, ~
| |
| 28.6 47.7 13,667 22,778 24,157 40,262 46.37 33.58 32.5 54.2 19,801 33,001 28,540 47,567 46.22 37.94 25.0 41.6 5,808 9,680 23,166 38,610 46.40 23.08 10 23.9 39.9 10,814 18,023 20,595 34,326 45.99 32.22 33.6 55.9 12,142 20,236 31,068 51,780 46.12 35.18 12 28.2 47.0 6,783 11,304 24,044 40,074 46.44 23.08 13 29.0 48.3 11,621 19,368 24;089 40,149 42.44 29.36 (Note: x - direction is in EW, y - direction is in NS)
| |
| Weld Loads The following tube-to-base plate weld load components are considered:
| |
| a) Seismic loads - acting upon bottom rack beam node, and also shared by the base plate cross beams. Load components are obtained from the full pool analyses (section 3.5.3.1.8) and consist of transverse Fand Fcomponents, vertical F, component normal to the base plate, bending moments Mand M, and torsion M,. Transverse Fand F forces are assumed to be uniformly distributed across all welds. Loads are distributed similarly for torsion induced shear from M,. Allthe loads are then assumed to act at the top rack plane. Load components (forces and moments) taken from section 3.5.3.1.8 are multiplied by the time history enveloping factor (1.20 for SSE and 1.12 for OBE condition).
| |
| Resulting weld / base metal stresses are calculated as:
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 168
| |
| | |
| 4 ~ L 4~
| |
| A
| |
| | |
| where oand oare the normal stresses due to base plate bending moments Mand M. The stresses which act upon the tube bottom (base metal), are normal stresses, as well as combied shear stresses in tube-to-base plate welds:
| |
| H TH Z
| |
| where Iand Iare principal moments of inertia for the whole weld or corresponding base metal group, (x;, y;) is welded tube side center location with respect to the weld group principal coordinate system. The principal coordinate system origin is located at (x, y) with respect to SE (lower left) base plate corner.
| |
| Horizontal weld and base metal total (average) shear stress x is due to transverse Fand F, 2 2 2 x+tz+x,+xT 2 where xx =f TH FF vertical F, and torsion Mall reduced to the weld or base metal group total area A:
| |
| ~
| |
| "; x y =f TH
| |
| ~
| |
| ~; xz =f TH F
| |
| '; xT =f TH H
| |
| 'r Note that stress components are evaluated at the rack corner which is farthest from the weld group principal coordinate system origin (at distance r). Polar moment of inertia for the weld/base plate group is J = I+ I. Results are summarized in Table 3.5-20.
| |
| b) Thermally induced loads - due to the difference in thermal expansion of the base plate and the tubes. Two conditions were considered (section 3.5.3.1.10):
| |
| eratin
| |
| ' " "- An ANSYS model yields the maximum stress of 5,031 psi at the "hot" cell-to-base plate interface (minimum - type 1 weld length of 40 mm is assumed).
| |
| d' " " - free thermal expansion of the base plate and tubes is partially constrained due to the existence of friction between legs and pool liner. Maximum induced stresses are in the corner tubes, and estimated (ANSYS model) stress is 6,676 psi for corner tube-to base plate welds (80 mm weld length, for type 2B rack).
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 169
| |
| | |
| K Table 3.5-20 Base Plate & Weld Stress Summary for New ATEA Racks
| |
| ';L'o'a'd;'.I;;;:'';:;::I:;
| |
| '-:,,Case"''0;:,i.,;::.':;::.
| |
| :..",8:,:.'(2B):,"::':.,':-::.".':':.9;'(3C),":::,":,::i",-',:.'::.:'':;."g0;.:'(3if)':;::.':::': ':','I 1''(3E)"'"'':"'',.'12.;:(3D).;:: .'::, ::13 (3B)::,'',".;:.':
| |
| I bm 10,506 10,611 5,900 8,837 7,170 5,151 7,286 17,510 17,686 9,834 14,729 11,950 8,585 12,143 2 bm 8,986 9,442 5,960 7,918 6,229 5,105 6,848 14,976 15,737 9,933 13,196 10,381 8,509 11,414 3 bm 13,976 13,388 9,565 12,046 8,724 8,234 10,296 23,293 22,313 15,942 20,077 14,541 13,723 17,160 4 bm 10,159 10,475 5,812 8,600 6,914 5,123 7,669 16,932 17,459 9,687 14,334 11,524 8,539 12,782 5 bm 10,537 10,770 5,999 9,196 7,181 5,314 7,828 17,562 17,950 9,998 15,327 11,969 8,857 13,047 6 bm 13,504 13,311 7,941 10,986 8,356 8,029 9,617 22,507 22,186 13,236 18,309 13,927 13,382 16,029 7 bm 8,397 8,615 5,478 7,485 6,027 4,826 6,766 13,996 14,358 9,129 12,475 10,044 8,044 11,277 8 bm 6,768 6,926 5,593 5,930 6,205 5,611 6,197 11,280 11,544 9,322 9,884 10,341 9,351 10,328 9 bm 5,386 5,382 4,232 5,095 3,946 3,597 4,134 8,977 8,970 7,053 8,491 6,577 5,995 6,889 10 bm 6,091 5,653 4,387 4,863 3,898 3,656 4,021 10,152 9,422 7,312 8,105 6,497 ~
| |
| 6,094 6,072 11 bm 6,869 1,622 8,454 1,845 6,243 4,984 6,864 11,448 2,704 14,090 3,075 10,405 8,306 11,440 12 bm 1,211 4,959 4,042 1,425 5,311 3,719 5,381 2,018 8,264 6,736 2,374 8,851 6,199 8,969 NOTE: bm - base metal, w - weld stresses 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 170
| |
| | |
| P ~
| |
| | |
| pV Table 3.5-21 Summation of Support Leg Weld Stresses
| |
| ';<i'':5~::"kL'oad,Co'iiibia'atioxn's';::.;"i~8".:,'!Max".%eld,'Streass"'(p'si);:'':
| |
| .'!A'lloiiable';Str'ess":,(psi):.'elds:
| |
| D + E (Level A) 11,677 0.3*(Su)=21,000 D+E + Ta (LevelB) 11,733 0.40*(Su)=27,930 D+E'+ Ta (LevelD) 18,302 0.42*(Su)=29,400 Base Medal: D+E (Level A) 8,257 0.40*(Sy)=9,260 D+E+ Ta (Level B) 8,297 0.532~(Sy)=11,725 D+E'+ Ta (Level D) 12,942 0.42*(Su)=28,123 Figure 3.5-40 Dimensions, Support Leg, and Gusset Plates Used For Weld Qualification RACK BASEPLATE 5.31 I-3.74 I ~ 010 3.35 4.05 GUSSET 5.91 PLATE T 3.00 SUPPORT 1.575 LEG 9.17 4.16 13.27 1.71/
| |
| 5.3 9.2 .394 ~
| |
| Ctyp)
| |
| (0taX) 5.55 ~094 3.00
| |
| : l. 7 I
| |
| 0.00~
| |
| F
| |
| ~ SUPPORT horlZontal F vertlCal 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 172
| |
| | |
| l 3.5.3.1.5 Summary of Support Pad Loads The following horizontal and vertical loads are given for the model legs. The actual leg loads for each rack must then be modified by the actual number of legs per rack. The tables also do not include the time history factors of 1.12 for OBE and 1.20 for SSE.
| |
| Table 3.5-22 Max. Boric. Model Leg Forces SRSS LCQ1 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 54,570 66, 620 66, 480 54, 970 66, 620 2 46, 600 73, 030 57,700 55,550 73, 030 3 45, 260 43,400 45, 920 37, 630 45, 920 4 39,250 49, 040 41, 130 38,380 49,040 5 37,320 43,870 48,310 39,890 48,310 6 42,710 45,530 52,510 42,380 52,510 7 30,340 33,280 35,090 42, 120 42,120 8 38,050 41,800 33, 650 40,040 41,800 9 26,470 27,520 22,920 23,770 27,520 10 39,200 36,240 32,370 25,480 39,200 11 32,430 35,750 32,480 29, 750 35,750 12 31, 090 26,220 25,250 22,610 31,090 13 34,870 33, 920 25,230 24,590 34,870 Table 3.5-23 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCg1 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 122,700 149,700 161,200 130,000 161,200 274,100 2 124,400 600 '46, 151,800 117,300 151,800 265,300 3 113,400 128,600 156,700 107,800 156, 700 263, 900 4 114,100 130,500 142, 600 109, 600 142,600 262,500 5 115, 600 119,900 156,400 114,600 156, 400 269, 100 6 119, 400 135,700 144,400 116,400 144,400 272,100 7 83, 640 96, 810 83,730 91, 750 96,810 162,100 8 100, 200 117, 500 98, 640 116, 400 117,500 186, 900 9 55, 490 68,410 57,780 62, 330 68,410 104,300 10 71, 970 82, 670 70,700 82, 940 82, 940 135,600 11 67, 570 89,030 68, 160 74, 000 89,030 132,200 12 57,240 68, 560 53,260 62, 620 68,560 105,400 13 73,390 85,750 74,280 70,590 85,750 121,000 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 173
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-24 Max. Horizontal Leg Forces SRSS LC52 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 52 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.2 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 24,180 22, 550 23,340 21,270 24,180 2 23,270 23, 620 23,530 21, 620 23, 620 3 20, 680 20,190 18,570 20,200 20, 680 4 20, 260 20, 980 19,280 21, 180 21, 180 5 21,790 21,240 18, 970 20,760 21,790 6 22,540 22,850 21, 310 22,420 22,850 7 15,750 15,510 13,270 15,380 15,750 8 17,130 17,360 16,240 17, 610 17,610 9 10,020 10,490 9, 930 11, 240 11,240 10 12,880 12,790 11,780 13, 160 13,160 11 12,000 12,830 12,350 12, 440 12,830 12 10,200 10,420 9, 813 10, 850 10,850 13 12,550 11,470 10, 930 10,720 12,550 Table 3.5-25 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCg2 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case I2 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.2 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 121,000 112,800 116, 600 107, 600 121,000 262, 200 2 116, 400 117,800 117,600 107,900 117,800 263,300 3 103,500 101,700 106, 200 100,400 106, 200 262, 200 4 102,400 104,800 97, 280 105,900 105,900 262,200 5 108,900 106,200 98, 680 103, 600 108,900 262, 800 6 112,700 114, 200 106, 400 112,000 114,200 264,700 7 78, 680 77, 520 71,790 76, 930 78, 680 157,700 8 85, 340 86, 710 81, 180 87,950 87, 950 184,900 9 50, 070 52, 390 51, 190 56,080 56,080 109,100 10 64, 290 63, 870 63, 65,780 ll 60, 50, 670 63, 920 61, 120 700 62, 160 65, 780 63, 920 132,500 118,200 12 930 52,030 49, 070 54,050 54,050 101,800 13 62, 430 56,870 54, 640 54,300 62,430 115,700'1-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 174
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-26 Max. Horiz. Model Leg Forces SRSS LCN3 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 53 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 64, 980 86, 330 60, 800 71, 860 86,330 2 52, 630 67, 460 53,260 57, 290 67, 460 3 34, 640 39,730 46,300 32,760 46, 300 4 31,450 36,720 41,280 30,310 41,280 5 29, 520 31, 240 42,720 27,820 42,720 6 36,740 48, 460 47, 630 38,870 48,460 7 41,300 46,780 34, 940 39,010 46,780 8 48,820 62, 630 46,830 39,380 62, 630 9 31,900 27, 590 28,850 32,820 32,820 10 29, 910 34,090 31,260 34, 670 ll 43,730 35,090 38, 600 37, 620 45,190 34, 670 45,190 12 32, 790 32, 170 38, 020 38,020 13 38, 160 38,210 28,970 32,360 38,210 Table 3.5-27 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCI3 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 53 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 189,900 199,800 208,900 198,700 208,900 465, 500 2 190,100 201,400 190,100 174,900 201,400 465, 500 3 162,800 174,200 162,000 150,800 174,200 465,500 4 162,200 175,500 163, 600 154,800 175,500 465, 500 5 155,000 174,900 172,500 162,000 174, 900 465, 500 6 164,400 182,500 186,000 172,300 186, 000 465,500 7 123,600 119, 600 129, 600 128,000 129, 600 276,700 8 145, 600 150, 300 149, 000 146, 500 150,300 322,400 9 87, 060 85,000 87, 990 84, 370 87, 990 166,300 10 107,600 101,100 111,600 108,900 111, 600 221, 600 11 112,000 107,500 112,200 101,100 112,200 204,200 12 85,290 85, 680 85,210 85,570 85, 680 173,300 13 115, 600 101, 900 103,600 91, 960 115, 600 203,400 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 175
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-28 Max. Horizontal Leg Forces SRSS LCN4 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 54 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.5 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 49, 660 5,8,, 720 63, 070 53, 360 63, 070 2 46, 000 62, 790 56, 070 50, 660 62, 790 3 37, 750 48, 600 42,300 35, 920 48, 600 4 37,200 54,050 34,590 38,450 54, 050 5 35,860 41, 160 46,070 40,880 46, 070 6 43,140 49, 180 50, 860 44,050 50, 860 7 34,910 32,500 31,310 34,740 34, 910 8 41,410 41,160 33, 140 35,980 41,410 9 26, 620 26,340 20, 690 21, 840 26, 620 10 33,430 34,010 29, 910 26, 790 34,010 11 31,800 31, 980 26, 960 23,870 31, 980 12 26, 040 24,000 20,780 22,470 26,040 13 31,710 33,870 22,840 23,450 33,870 Table 3.5-29 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCI4 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 84 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.5 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 121, 900 146, 000 156, 600 120,400 156, 600 267, 000 2 123, 600 146, 100 152, 600 122,500 152, 600 266, 800 3 110, 700 124,800 148,500 108,300 148,500 264,200 4 110,300 126,100 138,100 109,500 138,100 263,400 5 117, 900 124,700 145,100 118,500 145,100 270,100 6 122, 600 135,800 138,800 121,200 138,800 272,600 7 83, 560 93,060 ,83,070 94,390 94,390 166, 400 8 94, 660 112,100 96,,740 115,400 115,400 187,000 9 55, 680 64, 070 58 -~490 62, 260 64,070 108,800 10 74, 910 83, 920 68, 540 84,410 84,410 139,300 11 69, 850 82,020 69, 320 67, 990 82,020 127,500 12 58,750 66, 020 56,200 61, 220 66, 020 106, 900 13 76, 110 82,910 72, 920 67, 630 82,910 123,800 =
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 176
| |
| | |
| ~A
| |
| ~ ~ <<J 4 ~ ~,, * 't
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-30 Max. Horiz. Model Leg Forces SRSS LCg5 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 63, 630 69,790 70,000 65,030 70,000 2 59, 600 68, 830 53,420 57, 670 68,830 3 47,590 49, 960 47,740 50, 310 50,310 4 48,470 45,070 41,900 48,760 48,760 5 45,470 47, 040 50,270 44,580 50,270 6 49, 920 53, 920 55,280 48,220 55,280 7 34, 960 37,890 43, 690 31,480 43,690 8 45,840 36, 860 35,400 33,860 45,840 9 26, 520 29, 040 25,910 25,290 29, 040 10 34,550 31,770 26, 900 25, 560 34, 550 ll 12 38,320 31,100 32,730 26, 790 27, 060 22,820 30, 930 24, 000 38,320 31,100 13 37,720 35,320 26, 650 29, 960 37,720 Table 3.5-31 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCN5 GENNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 136, 400 150,600 148,200 136, 900 150, 600 297,200 2 132,200 154,400 139, 600 139, 400 154, 400 290,400 3 123,300 121,600 125,100 128,500 128,500 283,200 4 114,800 127,300 122,400 130,200 130,200 283,200 5 121,300 117,800 128,800 116, 600 128,800 288,500 6 123,400 121,900 127,600 123, 700 127, 600 288,300 7 86,270 84,320 77,570 94, 180 94,180 162,500 8 103, 100 108,100 91, 970 110,700 110,700 192,900 9 57,440 64,340 55, 680 60,480 64,340 97,710 10 69,560 80,340 65, 370 82,460 82,460 134,800 11 69,750 78,530 67, 680 72,820 78,530 122,800 12 55,990 64, 930 52,810 59, 040 64, 930 99,740 13 78,470 83,720 65, 960 67, 610 83,720 119, 600 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 177
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-32 Max. Horiz. Model Leg Forces SRSS LC56 GlNNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 56 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 64,020 68, 460 65,790 66,380 68, 460 2 64,040 55, 950 59,800 61, 780 64, 040 3 38,470 42,420 47, 920 31,300 47, 920 4 34, 610 36, 920 44,150 31, 980 44, 150 5 32, 940 31,790 45,240 31, 820 45,240 6 38, 650 43,820 50,170 38, 620 50, 170 7 36, 910 35,890 36, 960 39, 040 39,040 8 51,210 58,980 46, 330 48,230 58, 980 9 29,390 28,500 27, 970 33,190 33, 190 10 38,770 34,290 34, 650 34,870 38,770 11 40,260 40,830 37,110 42,830 42,830 12 28, 130 32,830 31,540 30,390 32,830 13 39, 660 39, 600 28,120 31, 650 39, 660 Table 3.5-33 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCI6 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 56 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 213,400 220,000 204,000 194,800 220,000 496, 500 2 206, 600 215,100 195,800 186, 000 215,100 494, 100 3 168, 000 188,200 167, 900 163,700 188,200 494, 100 4 170, 100 185,000 172, 600 160,700 185,000 494, 100 5 159,300 185,900 173, 900 165,400 185,900 494, 100 6 170,200 187,800 189, 800 181,200 189,800 494, 100 7 121, 100 130,400 117,500 106, 600 130, 400 276, 600 8 140,000 156, 000 136,500 138,900 156, 000 322, 500 9 81,330 86,280 82,300 82,540 86,280 169,800 10 107,700 109, 600 97,400 95,920 109, 600 221, 600 11 102,100 102, 800 108,100 94,940 108,100 204, 800 12 82,060 87,480 83,810 86,770 87,480 170, 900 13 105,900 109,500 98,730 88, 910 109,500 202, 600 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 178
| |
| | |
| 'N k
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-34 Max. Horizontal Leg Forces SRSS LCg7 GZNNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 07 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.2 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg '4 Max.
| |
| 1 23,400 23,290 22,140 21, 960 23,400 2 24,300 24,350 22,490 22, 930 24,350 3 20, 640 20,700 19, 940 21,570 21, 570 4 21,100 21,490 19,810 22, 680 22, 680 5 21,760 21, 630 20,390 22,750 22,750 6 22, 680 22, 680 22,010 24,140 24, 140 7 15,810 14,540 13,560 14,550 15,810 8 17,420 16, 590 16,280 17,100 17,420 9 10,210 10,330 9,787 10,210 10,330 10 12,750 11, 910 11, 630 12,520 12,750 11 12,830 12, 870 12,230 11,690 12,870 12 9, 865 9, 967 9,546 10,240 10,240 13 12,100 11,320 11, 160 10,490 12,100 Table 3.5-35 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCI7 GlNNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 07 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.2 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 117,100 116, 400 110,600 109,700 117,100 283,200 2 121,400 121,600 112,500 114, 600 121,600 283,200 3 103,300 104,200 103,800 107,700 107,700 283,200 4 105,400 107,300 101, 900 113,500 113,500 283,200 5 108,800 108,100 102,000 113,900 113,900 283,200 6 113,400 113,200 110,000 120, 600 120,600 284,100 7 78,700 73,230 71,030 72, 690 78,700 158,500 8 86, 310 82,890 81, 400 85, 120 86,310 181,600 9 50,950 51, 650 50,450 51,090 51, 650 100,900 10 63, 790 59, 600 62,780 62,540 131,800 ll 63, 49, 330 350 64, 210 61, 140 58,290 63, 790 64,210 117,600 12 49, 810 47,740 51,100 51, 100 101,800 13 60, 750 56, 560 56, 210 52,440 60, 750 115,900 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 179
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-36 Max. Horizontal Leg Forces SRSS - LCg8 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 58 Consolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.8 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 22,850 22,690 22,690 22,860 22,860 2 19,440 19,380 19,380 19,440 19, 440 3 12, 600 12, 450 12,450 12, 600 12, 600 4 13, 020 12, 860 12,860 13, 020 13,020 5 14, 650 14, 630 14, 620 14, 650 14, 650 6 16, 660 16, 580 16,580 16, 660 16, 660 7 10,200 10, 200 10,200 10,200 10, 200 8 11,580 11,420 11, 420 11, 580 11,580 9 16,790 17,510 17,030 14,050 17,510 10 7, 674 7, 665 7, 665 7, 674 7, 674 11 30, 050 25,330 29, 100 27, 190 30, 050 12 22,040 23,820 22,740 25, 990 25, 990 13 15, 890 14, 940 16, 190 15, 470 16, 190 Table 3.5-37 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCQS GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 08 Consolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.8 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 162, 100 159,700 151,600 151,900 162, 100 424,500 2 160,300 150,400 149,200 145,000 160,300 424,500 3 128,500 134,500 127,200 121,100 134,500 424,500 4 129, 000 131,300 128,300 123,500 131,300 424,500 5 126, 900 125,100 128,200 124,100 128,200 424,500 6 132, 600 128,900 135,900 128,000 135,900 424,500 7 82, 210 91,200 90,440 79,420 91,200 238,200 8 97,560 111,100 106, 800 97,250 111,100 270,000 9 58, 900 68, 610 67, 460 58,700 68, 610 138,100 10 70, 910 76, 170 77, 600 68,890 77, 600 195,200 11 86,550 89, 140 81,740 83,450 89, 140 172,600 12 75,850 68, 970 66, 210 68, 600 75,850 141,300 13 87,540 78,730 75, 190 64, 670 87,540 170,900 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 180
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-38 Max. Horizontal Leg Forces SRSS LCg9 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 59 Unconsolidated .Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 21,850 20,120 19,370 19,750 21,850 2 20,480 19,740 18,530 20,410 20,480 3 18,240 15,340 15,830 16, 810 18,240 4 17,210 15,890 15,290 16,370 17,210 5 17,190 14,820 15,540 16,660 17, 190 6 18,010 16, 950 16,540 17,120 18,010 7 11, 940 12,000 12, 410 11,810 12,410 8 13, 910 14,320 14, 290 12,550 14,320 9 8,885 8,383 8, 952 7, 969 8,952 10 9, 791 9, 606 10, 960 9, 834 10, 960 11 10, 990 10,380 10, 120 9,703 10, 990 12 9, 115 8, 351 8, 172 7, 959 9, 115 13 10,790 9, 172 9, 128 8, 687 10, 790 Table 3.5-39 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCI9 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case g9 Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 109,300 101,600 96,840 98,720 109,300 243,100 2 102,400 98,830 92, 630 102,000 102,400 243,100 3 91,190 84,180 84,340 86, 620 91,190 243,100 4 86, 060 85,420 86, 760 87,430 87,430 243,100 5 87, 120 84,460 78,810 83,970 87,120 243,100 6 90, 990 91, 190 85,710 89, 370 91, 190 243,100 7 59,730 62, 090 62,050 59, 140 62,090 139, 600 8 69,530 71, 630 71, 460 67, 910 71, 630 156, 500 9 44,420 41, 910 44, 760 39,840 44,760 84,790 10 48,950 48,030 54,770 49, 180 ll 54, 970 45,560 52,930 50,590 48,520 54, 770 54,970 116, 000 103,700 12 41, 760 40,840 39, 800 45,560 85,220 13 53, 960 46, 370 45, 640 44,170 53,960 102,900 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 181
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-40 Max. Horizontal Leg Forces SRSS LCN10 GlNNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case I10 Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 21, 950 20, 700 19,350 20,790 21, 950 2 20,840 20, 450 17,540 19, 150 20,840 3 17,940 15, 480 16,480 14, 370 17, 940 4 17,120 16,540 15,530 14, 620 17,120 5 16, 060 15, 220 14,810 14, 490 16, 060 6 15,890 14,750 16, 110 15, 720 16, 110 7 13,110 12,530 12,440 12,160 13, 110 8 14,550 14,190 13,740 14,030 14,550 9 9, 077 8,366 8, 621 8, 631 9, 077 10 10,240 10,450 10, 420 10, 160 10, 450 11 10, 940 10,390 10, 530 10,290 10, 940 12 8,795 8,395 8, 453 7, 793 8,795 13 10, 520 9,309 9, 974 8,717 10, 520 Table 3.5-41 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCg10 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case N10 Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 109,800 103,500 98,070 103,900 109,800 230,700 2 104,100 102,300 92,250 96,510 104,100 230,700 3 89, 690 84,500 82, 630 83,230 89, 690 230,700 4 85,590 88,680 79, 490 81,240 88, 680 230,700 5 82, 920 77,290 82,810 84, 620 84, 620 230,700 6 88, 260 84,010 82,450 84,740 88, 260 230,700 7 65, 530 62, 630 62,200 60,790 65, 530 139,600 8 72,720 70, 960 68,700 70, 620 72,720 156, 500 9 45,390 41, 830 43,100 43, 150 45,390 84,740 10 51,210 52,230 52,090 50,990 52,230 ll 54,700 43,980 51,950 52,660 51,480 54,700 115,400 102,800 12 41,960 42,270 38, 960 43, 980 83,740 13 52,830 48,040 49, 860 43, 620 52,830 103,700 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 182
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-42 Max. Horizontal Leg Forces SRSS LC¹11 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case $ 11 Mixed Fuel SSE Mu = Mixed Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 27, 670 42,710 30,140 34,540 42,710 2 26, 650 46,550 30,160 34,760 46,550 3 29, 110 23, 620 28, 690 28,060 29, 110 4 33,220 26,880 31,720 26,770 33,220 5 26, 010 24, 160 24,320 29,550 29,550 6 29,080 32, 900 26, 880 25, 670 32,900 7 21, 190 19, 490 21, 920 23,150 23, 150 8 10,700 11, 030 10, 260 10, 600 11, 030 9 29, 420 28,710 25, 160 30,590 30,590 10 5, 478 6,009 5,581 5, 647 6, 009 11 30, 610 23,580 22,490 27,850 30, 610 12 31, 130 22,550 23,100 23,760 31, 130 13 31,360 23,780 24, 640 24,250 31,360 Table 3.5-43 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LC¹11 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 511 Mixed Fuel SSE Mu = Mixed Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 57,750 89,720 81, 920 95,520 95,520 158,000 2 57,780 91, 080 76,440 93,560 93,560 154, 600 3 68, 950 54,710 101,400 70,060 101,400 157,100 4 106,700 116,900 104,200 108,300 116, 900 283,200 5 89,810 127,800 63, 930 92,180 127,800 262, 600 6 154,400 172,800 166, 800 169,300 172,800 494,200 7 68,510 45,190 81, 980 75,950 81,980 142, 600 8 19,750 19, 940 19, 850 19,380 19,'940 22,240 9 80,430 84,210 71,500 77,170 84,210 157,500 10 18,210 19,740 18,830 18,520 19,740 20,040 11 70,230 74,500 65,100 66, 890 74,500 117,700 12 54,060 59,370 54,640 54,410 59, 370 101,400 13 72,440 72,320 67, 860 62, 970 72,440 118,700 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 183
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-44 Max. Horizontal Leg Forces SRSS LCI12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 512 Mixed Fuel OBE Mu = Mixed Absolute Values Horizontal SRSS (Fx & Fy) Lbs Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Max.
| |
| 1 16, 070 15,450 14,380 15,660 16, 070 2 4, 260 4,240 4,377 3,874 4, 377 3 11, 900 11,810 11,810 11,900 11, 900 4 7, 782 8,076 7, 644 7,512 8, 076 5 12,770 11, 620 15,520 14,740 15,520 6 16,770 10, 030 14,500 13, 650 16,770 7 5,781 6, 153 5, 363 6,728 6,728 8 10,850 14, 050 14,090 11, 660 14,090 9 16,800 13, 800 15,350 15,190 16,800 10 6,366 6, 685 6,241 6,287 6, 685 11 20,720 20,240 21, 010 19, 950 21,010 12 14, 260 16, 760 13,330 13, 940 16, 760 13 12, 360 11,430 12,130 11, 600 12, 360 Table 3.5-45 Max. Vertical Pool Floor Forces -LCN12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 512 Mixed Fuel OBE Mu = Mixed Vertical Leg and Rack Forces Lbs Max. Rack Rack Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg Total 1 113,400 75,210 77,770 42,910 113,400 222,300 2 17,820 17,730 18,310 16,210 18,310 33,710 3 73,340 74,460 72,650 74,090 74,460 243,300 4 18,360 17, 970 18, 680 18,440 18,680 32, 970 5 53, 630 33, 660 66,410 46, 090 66, 410 136,500 6 55,720 32,650 70,440 47,450 70,440 136, 200 7 14, 900 15,120 14,170 15,820 15,820 16, 890 8 63, 280 70,740 69,880 62, 510 70,740 156, 500 9 42, 880 44,330 42,730 39,760 44,330 85,330 10 15, 640 16,840 15,140 15,360 ll 12 75,890 54,600 79, 160 75,270 74,700 16,840 79, 160 19,270 170,900 49, 010 33,950 25, 660 54, 600 78,400 13 72,830 69, 600 69,740 59, 920 72, 830 170,800 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 184
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.6 Fuel-to-Rack Impact Loads Table 3.5-46 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LCNl GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case $ 1 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx & Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 1, 388 1, 224 1, 350 1, 348 2 1, 163 1, 053 1, 299 1/ 322 3 1, 518 1, 291 1/ 231 1, 289 4 1, 136 1, 261 1, 304 1,240 5 1,299 1, 341 1, 247 1, 289 6 1, 380 1, 305 1/ 122 1, 432 7 803 1, 011 690 1,206 8 1/ 237 873 1, 114 1, 174 9 988 915 771 1, 171 10 1, 082 978 ll 12 1/
| |
| 1, 323 107 870 944 832 1,204 1,
| |
| 1/
| |
| 128 173 891 1, 181 13 1, 307 991 1,046 1, 175 Table 3.5-47 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces LCN2 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case $2 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.2 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx & Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 1, 288 1, 199 1/317 1, 253 2 1, 367 1, 160 1, 432 1, 159 3 1, 542 1, 290 1, 307 1/ 223 4 1,204 1, 142 1, 304 1/ 231 5 1, 306 1, 300 1, 270 1, 291 6 1, 524 1,219 1, 299 1, 394 7 1, 119 1, 149 860 1,288 8 795 777 746 1, 136 9 1, 131 917 1, 001 1/ 223 10 1, 060 978 ll 12 1, 199 1,254 971 940 841 1, 044 1, 097 1, 251 1, 079 1/227 13 1, 054 988 907 1/ 233 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 185
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-48 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces LCg3 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 83 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx & Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 299 317 331 262 2 281 305 333 290 3 293 290 367 314 4 292 269 359 302 5 293 339 395 325 6 307 344 396 328 7 260 176 354 221 8 291 178 380 227 9 306 166 366 198 10 278 155 330 199 11 330 156 392 203 12 310 163 366 191 13 289 142 338 188 Table 3 '-49 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LCN4 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 54 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.5 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 1, 267 1, 194 1, 335 1, 421 2 1, 374 1, 274 1/ 121 1, 261 3 1, 075 1, 082 1, 229 1, 301 4 1, 414 1, 134 1, 304 1, 364 5 1, 523 1/ 131 1, 508 1, 328 6 1, 423 1,208 1, 174 1, 376 7 815 1, 218 788 1,239 8 1, 328 1/ 123 1/ 117 1/ 227 9 1, 083 874 974 1/ 172 10 1/213 1,264 966 1, 121 11 1, 103 888 1, 045 1, 198 12 1, 210 1, 149 982 1, 220 13 1,280 990 1, 018 1, 202 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 186
| |
| | |
| ~ t Table 3.5-50 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹5 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 1, 451 1, 205 1,258 1, 457 2 1, 316 1, 043 1, 304 1, 448 3 1, 501 1,274 1, 532 1, 244 4 1, 525 1, 295 1, 324 1, 330 5 1, 516 1, 139 1, 501 1, 380 6 1, 308 1/213 1/ 327 1, 439 7 1, 087 1,215 994 1, 248 8 994 939 1, 036 1, 301 9 1, 112 807 1, 031 898 10 1, 043 990 967 1/ 331 11 950 1,013 821 1, 185 12 925 944 819 1, 228 13 1/ 127 1, 136 969 1, 229 Table 3.5-51 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces LC¹6 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case $ 6 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx & Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 318 314 342 265 2 317 298 340 301 3 313 289 353 311 4 311 269 348 300 5 309 349 385 320 6 318 355 385 324 7 250 177 331 223 8 267 176 363 223 9 302 164'55 363 197 10 272 318 201 11 301 153 389 198 12 286 164 368 191 13 282 144 343 189 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 187
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-52 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹7 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹7 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.2 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 1, 329 842 1, 143 1, 102 2 1, 389 843 1, 431 1, 184 3 1, 570 843 1, 470 1, 116 4 1, 423 1, 017 1, 186 1, 308 5 1, 464 1 227 1, 493 1, 397 6 1, 466 1, 236 1, 370 1, 450 7 1,289 1, 006 1, 026 1, 216 8 781 858 913 1, 210 9 939 1/272 757 1, 203 10 998 981 911 ll 964 1,258 946 804 1/ 232 1/ 273 12 1, 267 1,099 1, 106 13 1, 000 991 883 1, 230 Table 3.5-53 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces LC¹8 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹8 Consolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.8 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx & Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack' Fx Fy Fx Fy 115 141 132 110 2 109 137 140 106 3 109 133 142 100 4 103 132 144 100 5 108 132 144 94 6 104 132 144 94 7 80 97 122 84 8 75 95 121 81 9 76 100 119 88 10 67 ll 12 79 69 81 79 103 110 120 77 78 112 92 13 65 75 111 73 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 188
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-54 , Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LC¹9 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹9 Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx & Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 382 682 459 571 2 661 421 691 573 3 696 469 748 596 4 640 738 699 519 5 362 563 419 743 6 561 703 573 690 7 378 620 448 785 8 446 356 574 426 9 441 603 695 565 10 765 467 735 587 11 411 589 518 522 12 376 609 489 698 13 497 621 514 811 Table 3.5-55 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces LC¹10 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx & Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 618 707 605 504 2 357 503 392 608 3 440 590 604 577 4 803 417 959 515 5 465 751 523 720 6 629 670 794 946 7 333 461 389 608 8 413 681 524 472 9 343 575 582 797 10 485 574 574 724 11 358 489 436 649 12 583 598 521 491 13 461 624 546 658 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 189
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-56 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces - LCN11 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 Mixed Fuel SSE Mu = Mixed Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx a Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 1, 577 1, 056 1, 407 1/ 311 2 1, 488 1, 167 1, 520 1, 409 3 1, 451 1, 165 1, 495 1, 411 4 1,449 952 1, 497 1, 232 5 322 293 365 304 6 330 248 372 286 7 258 173 304 219 8 0 0 0 0 9 266 167 284 194 10 0 0 0 0 11 1, 029 898 1, 043 1, 239 12 1, 193 1, 034 990 1, 261 13 1, 070 977 1, 026 1/ 272 Table 3.5-57 Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces LC¹12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 Mixed Fuel OBE Mu = Mixed Local Fuel/Rack Impact Forces Fx & Fy (lbs) per Fuel Assy.
| |
| East North West South Rack Fx Fy Fx Fy 1 107 126 143 106 2 0 0 0 0 3 618 666 895 758 4 0 0 0 0 5 590 674 640 788 6 521 667 730 749 7 0 0 0 0 8 568 646 582 683 9 506 629 738 536 10 0 0 0 0 11 80 68 117 64 12 83 98 122 80 13 69 77 109 73 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 190
| |
| | |
| ~ ~
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-58 Summary of Maximum Fuel/Rack Cell Wall Impact Loads
| |
| .'",,';:;. ~,;:: Seismic,',',:.('.:';.,''.::,",; ~;:::Calculated!L''oad;-;: L'oad,'': ",,'':Ma'ximum":L'o'ad;,'' i';.:':: Maximum,,'',',.;'.",',:
| |
| ~i';;,-.':;TH.".Fa'cto'r
| |
| ;.'jj',:::'p:;:.:.,',:;::.:.:(Ibs);~;;.":.:;.',! !'Allow'able'.:L'o'a'd.'
| |
| ,'i::;..',';-:,.".';, '(lb');;'",'-,::,l'.;;,"'';;,';
| |
| SSE 1331 1.20 1600 2902 OBE 811 1.12 908 2291 Note: 1) Max. allowable load determined as load to produce max. allowable stresses in rack cell walls per ASME Section III criteria, as provided in Table 3.2-1.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.7 Summary of Single Rack 3-D Model Results These special studies on single rack models are performed to evaluate the effects of certain parameters on the results of seismic analyses. These evaluations reduce the number of whole pool evaluations which are required, thus making the analysis of the R.E. Ginna spent fuel pool racks more efficient. Two studies have already been reported. Section 3.5.2.6 covers the determination of time history factors for SSE and OBE, and Section 3.5.2.7 covers a study of the effects of rack stiffness on stresses and deflections. Four additional studies are reported in this section. The first study is an evaluation of the effects that increasing the rack tube height will have on the forces, moments, and displacements of the rack. The second study reported is an evaluation of the effects of attaching a peripheral rack onto the existing region 2 racks. This study includes the evaluation of the connection between the peripheral rack and the existing region 2 rack. The third study reported is an evaluation of three off-centered loading cases for half-loaded racks to find the most critical loading to be used in the whole pool model. The fourth study is a comparison of models with connected and disconnected fuel beams.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.7.1 Brief Description of 3-D Single Rack Model The analyses of the 3-D single rack model are performed using ANSYS 5.2, a finite element code accepted by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) for seismic and stress analysis. The model is made up of beam elements, mass elements, contact elements and hydrodynamic coupling elements.
| |
| .All structural members are modeled by the BEAM4 element. The BEAM4 element is a 3-D elastic beam with six degrees of freedom at each node. Beam elements are used to model the rack legs, the baseplate, the rack tubes, and the fuel.
| |
| The fuel beam and the rack beam are vertical beams located at the centroid of the rack in the horizontal plane. The fuel beam and rackbeam are connected at the bottom end. The baseplate beams extend horizontally Rom the bottom of the rack beam to the centers of the corner rack cells.
| |
| At the corner rack cells, rack leg beams extend vertically downward from the ends of the baseplate beams. Each leg beam represents one fourth of the total number of rack legs.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 191
| |
| | |
| All mass is represented by MASS21 elements. The MASS21 element is a lumped mass element which can be applied in all three orthogonal directions. The MASS21 element can also apply rotary inertia to represent the lumped mass more as a distributed mass.
| |
| Allcontacts between the rack legs and pool liner and between the rack tubes and fuel are modeled with CONTAC52 elements. The CONTAC52 element is a 3-D point to point contact element which allows for gaps, interface stiffness, and sliding friction.
| |
| Allhydrodynamic coupling between the fuel and rack, and between the rack and adjacent racks are modeled with FLUID38 elements. The FLUID38 element is a hydrodynamic coupling element with two degrees of &eedom at each node, translation perpendicular to the axes of the coupled cylinders.
| |
| There are two basic single rack models. The first is a representation of rack 8 (2B), a 9x11 region 2 rack designed by ATEA, see Figure 3.5-41. The second is a representation of rack 1, an existing region 2 rack in the R.E. Ginna spent fuel pool, with a peripheral rack, rack 4A attached, see Figure 3.5-42.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.7.2 Study of Effects of Rack Height Increase 3.5.3.1.7.2.1 Purpose of Rack Height Increase Study During evaluation of the racks, it became apparent that the height of the racks would have to be increased. The original design height of the tubes on the racks was 158.5 in. This height, for this study, was increased 3 in. to 161.5 in. All of the previous analyses had been performed using the shorter rack height, so this study was performed to determine the effects that this change will have on the structural seismic performance of the racks.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.7.2.2 Modifications Required in fhe Rack Model The following modifications were made to the standard model for rack 8 (rack 2B, 11x9) in order to represent a rack in which the tube height had been increased 3 in.
| |
| : 1. Increase rack beam height by 3 in.
| |
| : 2. Add mass of additional rack tube height, 98.6 lbs
| |
| : 3. Recalculated Mass Moments of Inertia for height of 161.5 in.
| |
| 4 Scale fuel to rack hydrodynamic coupling masses by (161.5/158.5).
| |
| : 5. Scale rack to rack hydrodynamic coupling masses by (162.68/159.68).
| |
| 3.5.3.1.7.2.3 Results of Rack Height Increase Study A 3 in. increase in the height of the rack tubes was found to have only minor effects on the resulting rack loads, moments, and displacements. Table 3.5-59 provides a comparison of the results of a rack analyzed without and with the height increase.
| |
| The actual height increase of the racks was 3.5 in. ( to 162.0 in ) rather than the 3.0 in. used in this study. However, comparing this difference with the highest analyzed ratio produced in Table 3.5-59 equals (3.5/3.0)(0.028) = 0.033, which when rounded to two significant figures still shows a maximum of 3 percent increase due to the actual height increase of the racks by 3.5 inches.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 192
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-41 Representation of Model for Single Rack Analysis n24 GAP 21 ELEMENT n21 FLUID COUPLING (Fuego-Reck) n30 ELEMENT n33 RACK 21 n10 nl 77-n1T n29 FUEL n32 n1 GAP
| |
| ~ELEMENT n6
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| n15 FLOOR n31 FLUID SUPPORT COUPLING n2 LEG ELEMENT (Reck<o-WeN) n6 n16 Note: Comparison with the above simplified model and the model shown in Figure 3.5-31 is provided in Section 3.5.3.1.7.5.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 193
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-42 Representation of Model for Analysis of Rack 1 with Attached Rack 4A CAP ELEWEg 33 RACK To RACK CONNECTION
| |
| ~ Sl SS 47 W ~S3 Sg TYPE 4 RACK
| |
| ~
| |
| ~8 10 13 C~P
| |
| ~LEuEIYT 80 EXISTING RACK 3
| |
| 32 ~EXISTING 7 RACK'S FUEL S8 48 S8 65 8
| |
| 31 GAP dc FRICTION~~
| |
| 15 ELEIIENT, 18 TYPE 4 RACK'S FUEL 63 41 EXISTING RACK SUPPORT LEG 43 6 (I OF 4) 48 16 45 TYPE 4 SUPPORT LEG (I OF a)
| |
| ~ 42 44 64 lp~R RACK-To-RACK CONNECTION 49 FLUID COUPLING ELEIIENT (RACK-TO-WALL) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 194
| |
| | |
| 0 Table 3.5-59 Comparison of Results for Rack Model With and Without a Height Increase
| |
| ;;.%'ith"Hei'gh't.'.'" ;:::
| |
| n'e""'ed ei "ht''".;.
| |
| ,';:,W(thout:.":Height:,",':.'Ii'icrea'se,".";:.':,:.,:;'.:,',:,:;":::.:;'.);';::::.""'"'4,910
| |
| :Iiic'iea'se'.::;.',';::;.';.'.,'',:.".';;: ':"Or'igin'al':Height'',"..".
| |
| Single Model Leg 33,570 0.962 Horizontal Max. Leg Load Single Model Leg 138,000 133,500 0.967 (lbs)
| |
| Vertical Leg Total Vertical 322,800 322,800 1.000 Max. Rack Load Horizontal 62,980 64,740 1.028 (lbs) Vertical 13,480 13,570 1.007 Max. Rack Rack Bending 6.701*10~ 1.008 Moments (in-lbs) Moment 6.645*10'2,950 Max. Impact Fuel-to-Rack 11,870 0.917 Loads (lbs)
| |
| Displacement of Horizontal 0.03354 0.03178 0.948 Leg (in)
| |
| Included in the table is the factor which would have to be applied to the results of the analysis without the height increase to envelope the results of the analysis with the height increase. This factor is 1.028 and.is governed by horizontal rack load. This factor needs to be increased by (3.5/3.0)(.028) = 0.033 for a total of 1.033 to account for the actual height increase of 3.5 in. rather than 3.0 in. as used in this study. This factor applies to all racks which have been increased 3.5 in.
| |
| in height. However, this factor was accounted for when selecting the enveloping time history factors in Section 3.5.2.6. The actual time history factor calculated for SSE is 1.164. The combined time history factor is:
| |
| SSE Time History Factor = 1.164
| |
| * 1.033 = 1.2024 = 1.20 Thus, the time history factor selected for SSE is 1.20. Likewise, the actual time history factor calculated for OBE is 1.088. The combined time history factor is:
| |
| OBE Time History Factor = 1.088
| |
| * 1.033 = 1.1239 = 1.12 Thus, the time history factor selected for OBE is 1.12. Because the factor for increased rack height has already been accounted for in the time history factor, no additional factors need to be applied.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 195
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.7.3 Peripheral Rack Attachment Study 3.5.3.1.7.3.1 Purpose of Peripheral Rack Attachment Study In the whole pool models, the global effects of the peripheral racks was studied by adding the corresponding size and weight to the resident racks. However, the size and complexity of the whole pool model did not allow detailed modeling of the peripheral racks. Therefore, a model of a single peripheral rack attached to a resident rack was developed. This model includes separate beam models for the two racks, with beams connecting the two racks. The finer detail of this model provides loadings for the connections, the legs of the peripheral rack, and the loads on the peripheral rack itself. A representation of the model used is this analysis is included as Figure 3.5-42.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.7.3.2 Peripheral Rack Model Input Adjustments The model to analyze the connections between the Type 4 peripheral racks consists of beam element models of the Type 1 resident rack and the Type 4 peripheral rack connected by additional beams.
| |
| The beams for the lower connection link the legs of the Type 1 rack to the baseplate of the Type 4 rack. The type 4 racks are modeled with 2 legs. The upper connection is modeled as a single beam which connects the centers of the two racks.
| |
| Connection Dimensions Bottom Connection (2 per model )
| |
| Material is SS Type 304 width = 90 mm (3.543 in.)
| |
| height = 20 mm (0.787 in.)
| |
| length = 285 mm (11.22 in.)
| |
| Section Properties: Area=2.788 in', I~ = 0.144 in4, I =2.917 in4 Top Connection (1 per model)
| |
| Material is SS Type 304L width = 140 mm (5.512 in.)
| |
| height = 40 mm (1.575 in.)
| |
| length = 57.4 mm (2.26 in.)
| |
| Section Properties: Area = 8.681 in', I~ = 1.795 in4, I = 3,778.695 in4 3.5.3.1.7.3.3 Summary of Results The results of this model are analyzed to find the loads in each of the individual racks and in the connections between the two racks. Tables 3.5-60 and 3.5-61 provide summaries of the displacements and the forces and moments on the racks and the connections for OBE and SSE respectively.
| |
| In calculating the stresses in the connection, the loads encountered during thermal accident conditions, a temperature rise &om 150'F to 180'F, must be included. The maximum loads caused by the thermal accident are horizontal leg forces equal to the dead load of the rack multiplied by the coefficient of friction betweent the leg and the pool liner. The top end of the friction range is 0.8.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 196
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-60 Summary of OBE Results in Peripheral Rack Analysis
| |
| '",'Periphe'rail
| |
| ';.';,Resident'.Rack!1:;.;"
| |
| Rack;:4'ax.
| |
| Single Model Leg Horizontal 16,190 8,708 Leg Load Single Model Leg Vertical 137,100 27,110 (lbs)
| |
| Leg Total Vertical 424,800 Max. Rack Load Horizontal Rack Load 19,560 13,700 (lbs) Vertical Rack Load 16,990 1,340 Rack Moments Rack Moment Mx 978,000 502,600 (in-lbs)
| |
| Rack Moment My 747,800 583,800 Max. Rack Rack Bending Moment 1.042*10~
| |
| Moments (in-lbs) 6.661*10',699 Max. Impact Fuel-to-Rack Impact Loads Load (lbs) 5,614 Displacement of Horizontal 0.01620 0.01770 Leg (in)
| |
| Bottom Connection Tension: 11,034 Compres.: -2,063 Axial Load (lbs)
| |
| Upper Connection Tension: 7,618 Compres.: -7,753 Bending Load Bottom Connection Vertical -703 (lbs) Upper Connection Horizontal 1,218
| |
| ' OBE results need to be multiplied by a seismic load factor of 1.12.
| |
| Top Connection Stresses for OBE o,, =1,000psi 5 1.0*S=15,700psi(304LS.S.)
| |
| o~ =157psi ~ 0.6*S=9,420psi Bottom Connection Stresses for OBE o b
| |
| = 4,433 psi s 1.0
| |
| * S = 18,300 psi (304 S.S.)
| |
| o~~b+b,~ =25,740psi 5 1.5* S =27,450psi 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 197
| |
| | |
| I 5 4 \ t 1AM
| |
| * 4 P t HP Table 3.5-61 Summary of SSE Results in Peripheral Rack Analysis 1.',,':::,;:. ',:.'Pe'ripher'al'Rack"4A'::
| |
| ':".::R'e'side'rit''.Rack-:::
| |
| Single Model Leg Horizontal 41,410 18,080 'ax.
| |
| Leg Load Single Model Leg Vertical 184,900 31,170 (lbs)
| |
| Leg Total Vertical 484,500 Max. Rack Load Horizontal Rack Load 42,870 25,710 (lbs) Vertical Rack Load 23,200 1,518 Rack Moments Rack Moment Mx 8 634*10s (in-lbs) 2.081*10'.323*10~
| |
| Rack Moment My Max. Rack Rack Bending Moment 6.569*10'.676*10'1,910 Moments (in-lbs) 2.196*10'4,050 Max. Impact Fuel-to-Rack Impact Loads Load (lbs)
| |
| Displacement of Horizontal 0.03793 0.03682 Leg (in)
| |
| Bottom Connection Tension: 25,724 Compres.: -5,164 Axial Load (lbs)
| |
| Upper Connection Tension: 17,153 Compres.: -17,319 Bending Load Bottom Connection Vertical -901 (lbs) Upper Connection Horizontal 2,297
| |
| ' SSE results need to be multiplied by a seismic load factor of 1.20.
| |
| Top Connection Stresses for SSE a~,~> =2,394psi s 1.2 ~
| |
| S=26,450psi(304LS.S.)
| |
| a>>~ =318 psi s 0.42 ~ S=28,123 psi Bottom Connection Stresses for SSE 0~,~, =11,072psi 5 1.2*S=31,200psi(304S.S.)
| |
| o, ~,~~ =31,914psi s 1.8 ~
| |
| ~ S=46,800psi
| |
| ~
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 198
| |
| | |
| e4 ack tre e f Ixx = 292 in4 Iyy = 15,471 in4 A = 25.9
| |
| = 8.3/2 = 4.15 in in'xx cyy = 84.56/2 = 42.28 in o, (X-Dir)= 8,000 psi s 1.0* S =15,700 psi (304L S.S.)
| |
| o,, (Y-Dir)= 1,787 psi s 1.0
| |
| * S = 15,700 psi (304L S.S.)
| |
| Note: Rack Overturning moments result in local cell wall membrane stresses T e4 e e o, > (X-Dir)= 14,725 psi s 1.2 ~
| |
| Sy 26,450 psi (304L S.S.)
| |
| o,, (Y-Dir)= 2,145 psi s 1.2
| |
| * S= 26,450 psi (304L S.S.)
| |
| Note: Rack Overturning moments result in local cell wall membrane stresses n e e'e ac ac Upper Connection o, >
| |
| = 687 psi s 1,194 psi local critical buckling stress Lower Connection This connection runs the entire 84.56 in. interface between the Type 4 Rack and the Resident Racks Area in compression = 42.28 in',
| |
| ~
| |
| = 1,453 psi s 31,200 psi (Level D loading with Level A allowables) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 199
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| ~ ll )
| |
| fl
| |
| * 3.5.3.1.7.4
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Off-Centered Loading Study 3.5.3.1.7.4.1 Purpose of Off-Centered Loading Study One ofthe scenarios which is analyzed using the whole pool model is a mixed load case. The mixed load case represents any of the following rack loading configurations:
| |
| : 1. Full, Unconsolidated
| |
| : 2. Full, Consolidated
| |
| : 3. Half Loaded, Unconsolidated
| |
| : 4. Half Loaded, Consolidated
| |
| : 5. Empty The cases which involve half loaded racks can be loaded off-centered, causing the higher loadings and displacements than if they are partially loaded with an even distribution. There are three different ways to load the fuel to provide off-centered loading:
| |
| : 1. Load half of rack on one side of short axis.
| |
| : 2. Load half of rack on one side of long axis.
| |
| : 3. Load half of rack on one side of diagonal.
| |
| Each of these three conditions are analyzed to determine which provides the highest loads, moments, and displacements for the half loaded racks. It should be noted that the absolute maximum racks loads occur with fully loaded racks with consolidated fuel. Further, the maximum rack displacements occur with fully loaded racks with unconsolidated fuel.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.7.4.2 Modifications Required to Analyze Off-Centered Loading Cases The rack modeled is rack 8 (2B), a region 2 11x9 rack. The half loaded case is modeled with 50 consolidation canisters. The fuel beam area, fuel beam moment of inertia, fuel weight, fuel to rack interface stiffness, and fuel to rack hydrodynamic coupling are all adjusted by multiplying by 50 canisters rather than 99. The centroids of the racks are adjusted for each case to represent the off-centered loading, and the appropriate mass moments of inertia are applied.
| |
| Centroid of centered loading case:
| |
| x: 46.655 in. y: 38.23 in.
| |
| Case 1: Load on one side of short axis.
| |
| x: 66.5193 in. y: 38.23 in.
| |
| Case 2: Load on one side of long axis.
| |
| x: 46.655 in. y: 22.0442 in.
| |
| Case 3: Load on one side of diagonal.
| |
| x: 60.6336 in. y: 27.9300 in.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 200
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.7.4.3 Summary of Off-Centered Loading Results A summary of the results of the loadings is provided in Table 3.5-62. The results indicate that in general, the diagonal loading pattern provides the highest loads, moments and displacements.
| |
| Maximum values are shown in bold text. Five ofthe seven items are highest for the diagonal loading pattern. For the two items which are higher for the short axis loading case, the values for the diagonal loading are within 5 percent.
| |
| Table 3.5-62 Comparison of Results for Half-Loaded Consolidated Rack 8, SSE1, Mu=0.8
| |
| ':Diagonal';,.'::;:;:,'.:y::;,;:.:,;,::ygg,':,',;,
| |
| Single Model Leg 17,480 lbs 13,720 lbs 19,210 Ibs Horizontal Load Single Model Leg Vertical 85,820 lbs 84,060 lbs 91,880 Ibs Load Total Vertical Load on Legs 165,700 lbs 164,000 lbs 166,100 lbs Rack Load - Horizontal 30,830 lbs 27,970 lbs 29,640 lbs Rack Load - Vertical 12,830 lbs 12,700 lbs 12,870 lbs Rack Bending Moment 3.361*10'n-lbs 2.873*10'n-lbs 3.222*10~ in-lbs Leg Displacement - Horiz. 0.02273 in. 0.01478 in. 0.02325 in.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.7.5 Comparison of Connected and Disconnected Fuel Beam Models All of the models used thus far have connected the fuel beam to the rack at the lower end. This model simplification was performed to aid convergence in the whole pool model. In order to maintain consistency between the single rack models and the whole pool models, the same simplification was made on the single rack models. However, the single rack model, having less complexity than the whole pool models, converged with the fuel beam essentially disconnected &om the rack (weak springs were used to connect the fuel to the rack at the base, in order to aid convergence). The purpose of this study was to compare the results of two analyses, one with the fuel connected and one with fuel disconnected, to determine the effects of connecting the fuel on the forces, moments, and displacements seen in the rack. The objective was to justify use of the connected fuel beam model for the whole pool models.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 201
| |
| | |
| I ~4 1
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| Differences Between Connected and Disconnected Fuel Beam Models The first analysis was performed using a connected fuel beam (Figure 3.5-41), and the second analysis was performed using the disconnected fuel beam (Figure 3.5-31). Both analyses modeled Rack 8 (2B) with consolidated fuel, and used a coefficient of friction of 0.8 and SSE time history set number 1. The following is a list of the differences between the two models:
| |
| : 1. Separate node for bottom of fuel beam.
| |
| : 2. The fuel mass was separated from rack mass and applied at new node.
| |
| : 3. New node was attached to rack beam by weak linear and torsional springs.
| |
| 4 A hydrodynamic coupling element was added at the bottom of the fuel beam. The fuel to rack hydrodynamic coupling was redistributed, 25% at top of rack, 50% at middle of rack, and 25% at bottom of rack.
| |
| : 5. Fuel to rack gap elements were added at the bottom of the fuel beam for the+X, +Y,
| |
| -X, and -Y directions.
| |
| Results of Connected and Disconnected Fuel Beam Model Comparison Table 3.5-63 contains the results of the comparison between the connected and disconnected beam models. The table reports the results of the individual evaluations and the ratio of the results of the connected beam model with the disconnected beam model. The comparison shows that the differences between the results of the two models is small, and the connected beam model results are slightly higher and are therefore more conservative. Therefore, use of the simpler connected fuel beam model is justified.
| |
| Table 3.5-63 Summary of Connected and Disconnected Fuel Beam Model Comparison Results
| |
| '.:;:.:,::::;:.';;,:.";;,".",:.::Comp oiierit,':j~:;:<g.,-',.::;-,'' ':.q.Conne'cted':Fuel%Beam:;:;
| |
| I,'"i"'.zDIs'c'o'nnect'e'd! Fu'e1N>::,:,:j''l:
| |
| Single Model Leg Horizontal Force 34,910 lbs 29,070 lbs 1.201 Single Model Leg 138,000 Ibs 134,500 lbs 1.026 Vertical Force Sum of Legs Vertical .
| |
| Force 322,800 lbs 322,600 Ibs 1.001 Horizontal Rack Force 62,980 lbs 57,090 Ibs 1.103 Vertical Rack Force 13,480 Ibs 13,470 lbs 1.001 Horizontal Rack Moment 6.645 x 10'n-Ibs 6.342 x 10'n-Ibs 1.048 Horizontal Leg 0.03354 in. 0.03120 in. 1.075 Displacement 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 202
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.8 Summary of Whole Pool Model Results The results of the whole pool multi-rack analysis are presented in this section, except for selected topics (ie, Fuel-to-Rack Impact Loads) which are covered in other sections.
| |
| The subsections are as follows:
| |
| 3.5.3.1.8.1 Rack Forces and Moments for Each Load Case 3.5.3.1.8.2 Final Rack Displacements for Each Load Case 3.5.3.1.8.3 Rack Rotations for Each Load Case 'inal 3.5.3.1.8.4 Representative Plots Table 3.5-64 Summary of Whole Pool Model Load Cases
| |
| ,":::;'-"'',:::,:'!
| |
| P,.
| |
| crim'eter:,'-',i ',P -.''.:;:::;;Coefficie'rit."of;.:,! '..
| |
| :;:j,:::ij~'jL'oading'':"':i.:':''::'.:'-:.::"'l '::;:;::.:,-"::i.:Friction',"', ji;.';
| |
| ",."'.c'"...'a".."
| |
| ~::. ".i SSE Unconsolidated No 0.8 SSE Unconsolidated 0.2 SSE Consolidated No 0.8 SSE Unconsolidated No 0.5 SSE Unconsolidated Yes 0.8 SSE Consolidated Yes 0.8 SSE Unconsolidated Yes 0.2 OBE Consolidated Yes 0.8 OBE Unconsolidated Yes 0.2 10 OBE Unconsolidated No 0.2 SSE Mixed'ixed'o Yes 12 OBE Yes Mixed'ixed'otes:
| |
| : 1) Fuel loadings of Empty, Half-Consolidated, Half-Unconsolidated, Full-Consolidated and Full-Unconsolidated were randomly assigned to the racks in the pool.
| |
| : 2) Coefficients of Friction ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 (with a mean of 0.5, and a standard deviation of 0.15) were randomly assigned to the racks in the pool.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 203
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-65 Summary of Rack Loadings for Load Case ¹11
| |
| ,,";;::NI,:;:',':;:,;Co ef5cIent'of'::.;'-;"';-'.
| |
| Half-Unconsolidated, 0.48 NE NE'alf-Unconsolidated, 0.53 Half-Unconsolidated, NW 0.58 Full Unconsolidated 0.75 Half-Consolidated, SE 0.66 Full Consolidated 0.25 Half-Consolidated, NW 0.43 Empty 0.59 Full Consolidated 0.42 10 Empty 0.31 Full Unconsolidated 0.59 12 Full Unconsolidated 0.71 13 Full Unconsolidated 0.47 Notes: 1) Fuel loadings of half full used a diagonal fuel loading for worst eccentricity. The locations of the centroid for the half loaded conditions were randomly assigned to one of the four corners of the rack. Thus, NE =
| |
| North-East, NW = North-West, SW = South-West and SE = South-East.
| |
| : 2) Coefficients of friction in the range between 0.2 and 0.8 were randomly assigned to the racks. The mean of the values for Load Case ¹11 is 0.52 and the standard deviation is 0.148.
| |
| Distribution of Fuel Loads for Load Case ¹11 Lu~ Qh Full Consolidated 2 Full Unconsolidated 4 Half Consolidated 2 Half Unconsolidated 3 Empty 2 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 204
| |
| | |
| 4 Table 3.5-66 Summary of Rack Loadings for Load Case ¹12 Half-Consolidated, SW 0.42
| |
| 'mpty 0.24 Full Unconsolidated 0.50 Empty 0..45 Half-Unconsolidated, NW 0.55 Half-Unconsolidated, NW 0.40 Empty 0.43 Full Unconsolidated 0.77 Full Unconsolidated 0.65 10 Empty 0.41 Full Consolidated 0.43 12 Half-Consolidated, SW 0.75 13 Full Consolidated 0.36 Notes: 1) Fuel loadings of half full used a diagonal fuel loading for worst eccentricity. The locations of the centroid for the half loaded conditions were randomly assigned to one of the four corners of the rack. Thus, NE =
| |
| North-East, NW = North-West, SW = South-West and SE = South-East.
| |
| : 2) Coefficients of friction in the range between 0.2 and 0.8 were randomly assigned to the racks. The mean of the values for Load Case ¹12 is 0.49 and the standard deviation is 0.153.
| |
| Distribution of Fuel Loads for Load Case 812 Lua&e Full Consolidated 2 Full Unconsolidated 3 Half Consolidated 2 Half Unconsolidated 2 Empty 4 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 205
| |
| | |
| e 3.5.3.1.8.1
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Rack Forces and Moments for Each Load Case Table 3.5-67 ~ Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹1 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -52,790 48,960 -95,430 90,500 -23,460 -13,890 2 -47,730 ,56,870 -92,630 84,690 -22,930 -13 I 650 3 '-52,960 40,220 -105,000 77,030 -22 I 810 -14, 190 4 -54,020 45,660 -95,510 76,140 -22,690 -14, 190 5 -73,610 54,300 -81,040 82,450 -23,260 -13,720 6 -67,270 46,410 -84,280 88,820 -23,510 -14 I 200 7 -56,650 51,990 -24,720 33,780 -11,460 -6,824 8 -64I390 59,140 -37,730 42,310 -13,140 -7,841 9 -35,110 32,440 -14,060 13,790 -10,260 -5,674 10 -42,430 42,910 -24,340 22,980 -13,330 -8,283 11 -44,190 50,490 -19,790 25,570 -13 I 090 -6,938 12 -37,490 35,780 -10,180 16,220 -10, 310 -5,847 13 -42,010 44,180 -23(340 25,000 -12,090 -7,388 Table 3.5-68 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹1 GlNNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -10.640 10.950 -6.556 5.899 -0.522 0.595 2 -10.130 11.070 -5.283 6.042 -0.606 0.677 3 -8.325 9.978 -4.775 4.350 -0.577 0.535 4 -8.653. 9.440 -4.703 4.680 -0.377 0.272 5 -8.884 8.926 -7.813 5.227 -0.366 0.425 6 -9.460 9.826 -7.416 5.542 -0 508 F 0.582 7 -3.154 3.051 -5.735 6.323 -0.208 0.239 8 -4.669 4.223 -7 '30 6.729 -0.281 0.331 9 -1.325 1.182 -3 '10 3.533 -0.237 0.215 10 -2.556 2.253 -5.044 4.902 -0.146 0 '66 11 -2.783 2.404 -4.405 4 '38 -0.166 0.185 12 -1.138 1.110 -3.575 3.699 -0.135 0.125 13 -2.424 2.284 -3.972 4.515 -0.189 0.185 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 206
| |
| | |
| I, ~ 'f Table 3.5-69 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹2 GZNNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -50,330 47,920 -63,490 72,310 -22,660 -13,900 2 -52,770 51,310 -61,840 68,070 -22,710 -13,570 3 -46,020 46,440 -61,140 58,390 -22,660 -13,460
| |
| -53I420 44,680 -61,420 68,470 -22,660 -13,460 5 -43,320 46,070 -60,860 68,440 -22,720 -13,460 6 -43,000 44,000 -73,570 90,930 -22,880 -13,470 7 -47,250 41,460 -28,000 25,570 -11,200 -7,134 8 -44,110 46,200 -33,770 42,680 -12,980 -7,788 9 -28,350 30,650 -12,860 13,250 -10,630 -5,653 10 -36, 730 37,950 -26,080 22,730 -13,010 -8,373 11 -35,370 37,460 -23,670 20,420 -11,750 -7,460 12 -27,700 28,630 -12,070 12,540 -9, 960 -6,047 13 "33,300 33,330 -25,230 19,060 -11,570 -7,651 Table 3.5-70 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹2 GONNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -9.342 7.955 -5.506 5.003 -0.370 0.292 2 -9.097 7.384 -5.325 4.779 -0.291 0.250 3 -7.066 6 '19 -4.635 3.415 -0.194 0.196 4 -7.515 6.430 -4.343 3.630 -0 '25 0.235 5 -8.004 6.563 -3.653 3.186 -0.235 0.270 6 -8.725 7.941 -4.092 3.375 -0.323 0.368 7 -2 '67 2.418 -5.137 5.355 -0 '44 0.167 8 -4.418 3.836 -5.276 6.024 -0.159 0.196 9 -1.398 1.042 -3.387 3.650 -0.120 0.129 10 -2 '49 2.226 -4.289 4.280 -0.112 0.136 11 -2.274 2.197 -4.102 4.423 -0.095 0.103 12 1 277
| |
| ~ 0.985 -3.468 3.481 -0.072 0.075 13 -2.405 2.260 -3.788 4.120 -0.129 0.100 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 207
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-71 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LCg3 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case g3 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -66,330 71,480 -147,200 137,700 -24,060 -12,630 2 -57,400 54,080 -131,900 119,500 -24,060 -12,730 3 -60,520 57,640 -101,700 108,600 -24,060 -12,750 4 -60,290 51,580 -106,500 107,600 -24,060 -12,750 5 -65,780 54,300 -98,050 108,000 -24,060 -12,750 6 -69,900 56,790 -104,700 117,800 -24,060 -12,750 7 -79,380 86,280 -40,040 45,420 -11,650 -6,779 8 -82,650 98,880 -51, 140 60,740 -13,460 -7,888 9 -52,350 65,050 -181540 21,300 -9,837 -5,310 10 -65,250 72,760 -35, 700 36,290 -13,170 -7,864 11 -63/300 74,980 -31,200 32,490 -12,250 -6/996 12 -49,740 59,820 -19,800 23,530 -10,250 -5,530 13 -61,500 67,090 -35,060 33,130 -12,290 -7/ 212 Table 3.5-72 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LCI3 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case g3 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -15.840 14.950 -6.339 7.307 -0.888 0.898 2 -14 '60 13.600 -5.366 5.321 -0 '19 0.491 3 -11.160 10.730 -3.900 3.441 -0.340 0.272 4i -10.480 9.842 -3.957 3.580 -0.220 0.173 5 -9.832 10 420 F -4.897 4.318 -0.199 0 '71 6 -11.480 12.050 -5.369 4.969 -0.275 0.293 7 -3.848 3.310 -7.457 8.648 -0.180 0.231 8 -5.114 4.909 -8.893 9.440 -0.324 0.353 9 -1 '79 1.678 -5.341 6.813 -0.221 0.217 10 -2.821 2.857 "6.487 7.517 -0.182 0. 213 11 -2.451 2.661 -6.969 7.333 -0.260 0.266 12 -1.403 1.435 -5.424 6.399 -0 '11 0 '30 13 -2.468 2.972 -6.146 6.830 -0.284 0.322 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 208
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-73 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹4 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹4 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.5 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -51/490 59,470 -92,040 86,220 -23,050 -13,740 2 -46,580 53,850 -87,100 89,180 -23,060 -13,460 3 -61,530 44,990 -91,480 73,310- -22,840 -13,940 4 -53,010 43,260 -89,380 79,110 -22,770 -13,810 5 -64,430 49,920 -77,530 86,680 -23,340 -13,920 6 -65,330 60,210 -82,560 88,100 -23,550 -13,900 7 -57,600 50,180 -29,510 33,700 -11/810 -6,715 8 -63,580 56,170 -39,670 43,280 -13,170 -7,906 9 -34,780 33,070 -13,050 12,650 -10,720 -5,496 10 -44,950 44,390 -26,660 29,750 -13,680 -8,234 11 -41,200 43,380 -20,200 23,600 -12,640 -7,326 12 -35,730 35,100 -10,890 11,350 -10,530 -5,671 13 -35,060 42,560 -24,380 24,200 -12,310 -7,174 Table 3.5-74 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹4 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹4 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.5 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -10.430 11.490 -5.788 5.872 -0.504 0.654 2 -10.430 10.890 -4.886 5.981 -0.543 0.376 3 -8.321 9.106 -5.468 4.240 -0.289 0.336 4 -8.416 9.020 -5.542 4.720 -0.417 0.366 5 -8.156 8 '85 -7.789 5.785 -0.325 0 '36 6 -9.294 9.577 -7.997 5.935 -0.366 0.360 7 -3.055 2.896 -6.100 5.839 -0.159 0.192 8 -4.580 3.926 -6.961 6.673 -0.341 0.391 9 -1.289 1.309 -3.650 3.535 -0.151 0.138 10 -2.474 2.271 "4.894 4.835 -0.169 0.140 11 -2.634 2.109 -4.448 4.576 -0.172 0.158 12 -1.000 1.158 -3.657 3.606 "0.141 0.163 13 -2.680 2.662 -3.946 4.622 -0.155 0.138 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 209
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-75 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Rz - LC¹5 GONNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE Mu = 0.8 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy "
| |
| Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -46I 410 51,270 103,900 109,100 -25,870 -14 I 070 2 -48,550 54,790 104,600 105,200 -25,430 -14,320 3 -51,080 42,070 -96,110 95,890 -24,700 -14,680 4 -49,500 42,440 -97,660 97,740 -24I700 -14,740 5 -71,970 47,940 -97,320 89,390 -25,160 -14,430 6 -81,550 53,640 102,900 97,700 -25,140 -14,280 7 -57,340 54,570 -29,000 34,340 -11,510 -7,102 8 -70I580 59,840 -45,040 40,210 -13,580 -7,830 9 -33,960 35,270 -14,720 12,700 -9,535 -5,702 10 -42,600 46,360 -28,250 26,680 -13,250 -8,087 11 -38,990 55,460 -24,760 21,800 -12,170 -7,055 12 -35,120 35,700 -12,600 13,370 -9,740 -5,515 13 -39,010 42,250 -28,440 26,050 -11,970 -7,140 Table 3.5-76 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹5 GONNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -12 '30 13.460 -4.887 4.697 -0.709 0.548 2 -12 '60 11.920 -4.816 4.164 -0.739 0.750 3 "11.410 11.080 -4.913 3 '86 -0.491 0.406 4 -11.310 11.560 -4.252 4.234 -0.421 0.511 5 -10.040 10.960 -7.132 4.671 -0.598 0 '06 6 -10.650 11.830 -6.449 4.974 -0.332 0.424 7 -3.145 3.003 -6.261 6.354 -0.212 0.252 8 -4.538 4.946 -6.909 6.916 -0.295 0.273 9 -1.453 1.309 -3.539 3.488 -0.180 0.132 10 -2 '73 2.868 -4.944 4.813 -0.155 0.203 11 -2.199 2.715 -4.412 4.752 -0.230 0.241 12 -1.121 1.307 -3.527 3.633 -0 '38 0.135 13 -2.800 2.742 -4 '33 4 '33 -0.180 0.145 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 210
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-77 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹6 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹6 Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -70,290 59,940 -144,000 145,800 -25,950 -13,170 2 -65,800 50,590 -129,300 123,700 -25,800 -13,170 3 -62,710 49,580 -107,200 119,700 -25,800 -13,170 4 -67,340 47,810 -107,000 118,800 -25,800 -13,170 5 -71,790 56,630 -101,600 114,300 -25,800 -13,170 6 -72,390 63,110 -108,400 125,100 -25,800 -13,170 7 -65,260 90,640 -39,500 45,210 -11,650 -6,815 8 -84,380 84,640 -54,980 63,020 -13,470 -7,838 9 -53,660 56,940 -18,140 19,660 -10,040 -5,575 10 -56,100 72,920 -36,530 36,960 -13,170 -8,024 11 -63,610 63,840 -31,290 31,350 -12,290 -6,851 12 -53,130 66,960 -20,620 18,890 -10,110 -5,598 13 -61,190 62,430 -35,200 33,010 -12,240 -6,846 Table 3.5-78 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - TC¹6 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹6 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -15.390 15.930 -5.518 5.541 -0.516 0.701 2 -15.050 12.780 -6.292 5.465 -0.533 0.845 3 -12.430 11.700 -3.967 3.993 -0.250 0.208 4 -11.420 10.850 -4.713 3.987 -0.248 0.217 5 -10.490 10.770 -5.261 4.634 -0.144 0.123 6 -12.310 12.160 -5.664 4.884 -0.179 0.149 7 -4.070 3.288 -6.997 8.054 -0.215 0.246 8 -5.555 4.608 -9.052 7.925 -0.323 0.395 9 -1.646 1.553 -5.132 5 '12 -0 '85 0.212 10 "2.882 2.712 -6.343 6.517 -0.214 0.241 11 -2.305 2.565 -6.481 7.035 -0 '32 0.227 12 -1.408 1.504 -5.596 6.085 -0.197 0.209 13 -2.387 2.648 -5.881 6.491 -0.233 0.197 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 211
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-79 Rack Forces Fx, Fy E Fz - LC¹7 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹7 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -59,090 55, 910 -70,350 75,780 -24,700 -14,790 2 -48/380 46,530 -67,240 72,950 -24,700 -14,880 3 -43,220 39,650 -61,890 74, 530 -24,700 -14,430 4 -41,430 53,070 -69,170 68,820 -24,700 -14,430 5 -38,700 44,670 -73,460 71,530 -24,700 -14,430 6 -46,190 43,210 -82,560 96,500 -24,780 -14,430 7 -40, 620 38,760 -25,540 24,890 -11/260 -7,219 8 -39,420 46,990 -42,170 40,080 -12,770 -7,940 9 -28, 900 29,180 -19,840 12,640 -9/851 -5,949 10 -34,250 37,820 -29,830 24,800 -12,960 -8,340 11 -34,050 35,070 -25,470 19,900 -11,700 -7,545 12 -27,760 29,200 -16,670 11,610 -9,956 -5,840 13 -31,360 31,690 -25,500 25,950 -11,590 -7,417 Table 3.5-80 Rack Moments Mx, My a Mz - LC¹7 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹7 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Rack Moments Mx, My 6 Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -9.349 8.796 -4.441 4.246 -0.221 0.278 2 -9.193 8.662 -4.681 4.140 -0.262 0.273 3 -7.675 7.100 -4 '05 3.691 -0.185 0.181 4 -7.884 6.818 -3.670 3.461 -0.276 0.308 5 -8.760 7.679 3 ~ 272 3.114 -0.231 0.304 6 -9.640 9.303 -3.292 3.066 -0.319 0.407 7 -2.710 2.441 -4.906 4 '67 -0 '25 0.171 8 -4.177 4.001 -4.897 5.319 -0.132 0 '87 9 -1.220 1.164 -3.468 3.364 -0.105 0.122 10 -2.426 2.240 -3.856 3.779 -0.108 0.108 11 -2.026 2.161 -4.191 4.385 -0.103 0.134 12 -1 055 F 1.006 -3.488 3.507 -0.074 0.083 13 -2.354 2 '32 -3.620 4.100 -0.094 0.090 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 212
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-81 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LCN8 GONNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case g8 - Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -46,380 42,380 -85,620 99,540 -20,850 -15,980 2 -38,460 37,830 -74,010 88,260 -20,850 -15,980 3 -30,360 34,950 -56I530 56,640 -20,850 -15/980 4 -31/580 33,650 '52,960 53,880 -20,850 -15,980 5 -33I460 29,110 -73,110 56,470 -20,850 -15,980 6 -32,590 27,990 -79,430 61,010 -20,850 -15,980 7 -39,830 30,610 -28,490 23,870 -10,030 -8,295 8 -39,420 34, 930 -37,940 32,400 -11,270 -9,219 9 -39,680 31, 630 -12,420 10,900 -8,178 -6,987 10 -30,590 25,110 -21,120 21,760 -11,600 -9,608 11 -51,930 42,770 -20,820 17,420 -10,360 -8,628 12 -41,410 40,770 -13,350 10,070 -8,363 -6,845 13 -36,700 30,680 -20,950 20,830 -10,330 -8,692 Table 3.5-82 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC58 GONNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case NS - Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -10.640 10.160 -3.968 3.628 -0.000 0.000 2 -9.256 8.347 -3.412 2.817 -0.000 0.000 3 -5.797 5.391 -2.581 2.199 -0.000 0.000 4 -5 '71 5.030 -2.299 2.043 -0 000 F 0.000 5 -5.902 6.957 -2.596 1.876 -0.000 0.000 6 -6.334 7.592 -2.647 1.992 -0.000 0.000 7 -2.145 2.129 -4.378 3 '84 -0.000 0.000 8 -2.828 3.605 -4.575 3.933 -0.003 0.004 9 -1.000 0.994 -4.348 3.959 -0.061 0.063 10 -1.602 2.066 -3.283 2.888 -0.000 0.000 11 "1.314 2.093 -5.220 5.494 -0.093 0.083 12 -0.888 0.922 -4.740 4.811 -0.100 0.102 13 -1.584 2.150 -4.199 4.197 -0.081 0.054 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 213
| |
| | |
| 4lt+A I ~ gq ~ \') 1 ~
| |
| Table 3.5-83 Rack Forces Fx, Fy a Fz - LC¹9 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹9 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE Mu = 0.2 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -38/300 33,270 -67,440 63,890 -21,210 -17,510 2 -31,830 28,850 -62,750 58,130 -21/ 210 -17,510 3 -28,990 30,150 -51,200 51,070 -21, 210 -17,510
| |
| -31,420 30,130 -52,740 53,580 -21,210 -17,510 5 -33,230 2S,920 -60,110 61,870 -21,210 -17,510 6 -27,350 26,080 -51,230 52,200 -21,210 -17,510 7 -37,940 30,520 -19,910 19,400 -9,922 -8,542 8 -38,580 32,790 -24,210 22,590 -11, 030 -9,418 9 -25,390 27,430 -10,250 9,799 -8, 312 -6,978 10 -30,010 27,280 -12,680 15,040 -11,420 -9, 830 11 -29,570 30,460 -14,600 11,950 -10,300 -8/733 12 -21,520 21,650 -9,840 8,599 -8,321 -6,895 13 -24,810 25,070 -15,740 14,310 -10,290 -8,832 Table 3.5-84 Rack Moments Mx, My 6 Mz - LC¹9 GZNNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹9 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -8.108 8.336 -2.595 2.956 -0.185 0.185 2 -7.581 7.526 -2.804 2.557 -0.128 0.198 3 -4.687 5 '83 -2.539 2.455 -0.167 0.190 4 -4.809 5.491 -2.068 2.085 -0.087 0.085 5 -4.988 5.074 -2 '42 2.201 -0.066 0.050 6 -5.782 5.553 -2.086 2.102 -0.078 0.088 7 -1.783 1.765 -3 '04 3.391 -0.072 0.059 8 -2.363 2.289 -3.956 3 '40 -0.078 0.094 9 -0.875 0.783 -2.935 3.121 -0.054 0.042 10 -10327 1.469 -3 '31 2.359 -0.062 0.058 11 -1.242 1.176 -3.527 3.677 -0.054 0.050 12 -0.674 0.703 -2.988 2.966 -0.032 0.032 13 -1.198 1.390 -2.838 2.692 -0.051 0.063 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 214
| |
| | |
| I Table 3.5-85 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz - LC¹10 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -34,740 37,840 -56,520 54,270 -19,950 -16,470 2 -30,270 34,120 -59,450 63,300 -19,950 -16,470 3 -34,310 29,990 -48,080 54,760 -19,950 -16,470 4 -29,010 34,490 -51,390 47,610 -19,950 -16,470 5 -27,410 31,400 -58,770 58,870 -19,950 -16,470 6 -39,260 29,050 -50,920 52,150 -19,950 -16,470 7 -32,790 32,780 -17,130 17,400 -9,922 -8,542 8 -32,820 36,590 -27,360 24,230 -11,030 -9,418 9 -25,420 27,080 -9,398 9,521 -8,316 -7,041 10 -25,500 26,770 -16,720 15,820 -11,360 -9,830 11 -29,520 24,890 -13,850 14,260 -10,200 -8,896 12 -24,000 24,940 -10,900 8,519 -8,211 -7,018 13 -23,010 21,090 -14,930 17,800 -10,370 -8,844 Table 3.5-86 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹10 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -6.622 7.304 -3. 373 3.973 -0.155 0.188 2 -6.944 7.149 -2.751 3.710 -0 '17 0.093 3 -5.023 5 '96 -2.292 2.587 -0.121 0.106 4 -4.659 5.205 -2.365 2.543 -0.112 0.132 5 -5.158 4.490 -2.328 2.257 -0.092 0.098 6 -4.850 5.218 -2.557 2.510 -0.063 0.055 7 -1.831 1.764 -4.039 3.705 -0.080 0.093 8 -2.428 2.586 -4.076 3.572 -0.080 0.083 9 -0.890 0.989 -3.006 3.101 -0.062 0.043 10 -1.387 1.481 -2 '90 2.947 -0.050 0.049 11 -1.254 1.105 -3.584 3.252 -0.047 0.054 12 -0 '09 0.722 -3.016 2.970 -0.044 0.038 13 -1.364 1.468 -2.631 2.486 -0 '61 0.061 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 215
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-87 Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz LC¹11 GZNNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 - Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -31,020 26,090 -70,390 46,510 -24,290 -15,070 2 -32,360 26,290 -61,450 47,210 -23,730 -15/370 3 -27940 25,100 -55,930 55,930 -24,100 -15,410 4 -31,290 42,990 -68,710 61,970 -24,700 -14,440 5 -34,340 33,510 -59,820 74,510 -25,370 -14,390 6 -58,400 62,020 -81,720 98,510 -25,800 -13,160 7 -39,090 40,390 -27,180 23,810 -11,240 -7,180 8 -15,480 15,380 -17,430 22,320 -13,490 -7,898 9 -53/780 55,230 -14,180 16,250 -9,322 -6, 032 10 -10,960 12,070 -12,090 13,520 -,12,710 -8,540 11 -41,190 39,650 -18,910 20,720 -11,640 -7,394 12 -33,950 33,810 -12,700 15,990 -9,940 -5/738 13 -42,590 35,970 -22,810 22,310 -11,870 -7,756 Table 3.5-88 Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz - LC¹11 GONNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Rack Moments Mx, My & Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -5.815 8.222 -2.948 2.718 -0.261 0.225 2 -5.501 7.580 -3.246 2.965 -0.248 0.198 3 -5 '39 6.477 -2.098 1.894 -0.234 0.207 4 -6.993 7.257 -3.501 3.912 -0.094 0.074 5 -7.137 5.715 -2.399 2.777 -0.172 0.149 6 -9.980 8.469 -3.812 5.311 -0.235 0.285 7 -1:943 1.797 -3.506 4.205 -0.108 0.120 8 -0.734 0.704 -0.912 0.896 -0.102 0.118 9 -1.500 1.075 -5.366 6.015 -0 '06 0.133 10 -0.585 0.514 -0.805 0.878 -0.039 0.048 11 -2.133 2.302 -4.109 4.356 -0.127 0.117 12 -0.997 1.094 -3.601 3.380 -0.088 0.092 13 -2.123 2 '20 -3.954 4.322 -0.142 0.168 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 216
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-89 Rack Forces Fx, Fy 8 Fz - LC¹12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 - Mixed Fuel OBE Mu = Mixed Rack Forces Fx, Fy & Fz (lbs)
| |
| Rack Min Fx Max Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Fz Max Fz 1 -181950 16,980 -40,320 45,930 -21,470 -17,750 2 -11,140 8,009 -15,440 14,010 -21,580 -17,860 3 -23,560 27,670 -38,210 41,050 -21,230 -17,520
| |
| -11,610 11,260 -17,270 18,840 -21,110 -18,360 5 -17,680 15,950 -32,500 34,200 -20,970 -18,100 6 -15,970 16,230 -37,820 34,780 -20,920 -18,110 7 -9,893 9,514 -6,669 6,994 -10,390 -8,539 8 -37,740 31,640 -22,830 20,060 -11,030 -9,418 9 -27,570 27,010 -8,257 9,215 -8,351 -6,886 10 -10,460 9,993 -8,776 8,304 -12,190 -9,684 11 -39,560 45,870 -13,820 13,750 -10,250 -8,628 12 -21,370 28,870 -7,209 7, 718 -8,485 -6,851 13 -32,750 32,160 -201110 15, 010 -10,330 -8,691 Table 3.5-90 Rack Moments MxI My a Mz - LC¹1 2 GZNNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 - Mixed Fuel - OBE - Mu = Mixed Rack Moments Mx, My 6 Mz (in-lbs) x 1E6 Rack Min Mx Max Mx Min My Max My Min Mz Max Mz 1 -5.514 4.377 -1.124 1 '90 -0.075 0.083 2 -1.665 1.678 -0.722 0.571 -0.034 0.029 3 -3.134 3.443 -1.472 1.220 -0.000 0.000 4 -1.722 1.654 "0 '38 0.727 -0 '31 0.037 5 -3.105 3.358 -1.257 1.356 -0.055 0.058 6 -3 '31 4.070 -1.436 1.386 -0.052 0.059 7 -0.474 0.475 -0.647 0.653 -0.025 0.029 8 -1.809 1.985 -3.784 3.626 -0.040 0.034 9 -0.699 0.634 "3.083 3 '75 -0.057 0.060 10 -0.467 0.477 -0.728 0.738 -0.040 0.033 11 -0.945 1.398 -4.905 5.392 -0.039 0.033 12 ,-0.496 0.686 -2.126 3.109 -0.049 0.062 13 -1.334 1 '29 -3.454 3.780 -0.027 0.031 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 217
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.8.2 Final Rack Displacements for Each Load Case Table 3.5-91 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LCgi GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case N1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Fa.na Re atzve Horzzonta X Disp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude (in)
| |
| WW/1 Opening 0.02417 WW/2 Closing 0.02180 1/3 Closing 0.03667 2/4. Opening 0.00913 3/S Closing 0.00336 4/6 Closing 0.00552 S/7 Opening 0.00267 S/8 Closing 0.00811 6/8 Closing 0.00578 6/9 Opening 0.03545 6/10 Opening 0.01840 8/ii Closing 0.00052 9/i2 Closing 0.02312 10/i3 Opening 0.01870 11/EW Opening 0.02449 12/EW Opening 0.00585 13/EW Closing 0.01891 Table 3.5-92 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC01 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case gl Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE Mu = 0.8 Fz.na Re atxve Horzzonta Y Dxsp. N-S or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude (in)
| |
| SW/1 Opening 0.01273 1/2 Opening 0.01073 2/NW Closing 0.02345 SW/3 Closing 0.02392 3/4 Opening 0.00086 4/NW Opening 0.02306 sw/s Opening 0.00173 s/6 Closing 0.01910 6/NW Opening 0.01737 SW/7 Closing 0.09708 7/8 Closing 0.02245 8/9 Opening 0.00235 9/10 Opening 0.04914 10/NW Opening 0.06804 SW/11 Closing 0.14916 11/12 Opening 0.01488 12/13 Opening 0.02572 13/NW Opening 0.10856 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 218
| |
| | |
| llljA,A... 4: % II A ~ It ~ ~, 0 P 4 ttl e+.aft ~
| |
| h
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-93 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹2 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Fina Re atzve Hora.zonta X Dxsp. E-W or al rac s:
| |
| Cap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Closing 0.00763 WW/2 Opening 0.03430 1/3 Closing 0.00725 2/4 Closing 0.00208 3/5 Closing 0.01017 4/6 Closing 0.01164 5/7 Closing 0.19546 5/8 Closing 0.14137 6/8 Closing 0.18699 6/9 Closing 0.20772 6/10 Opening 0.05527 8/11 Closing 0.13015 9/12 Closing 0.03844 10/13 Closing 0.06719 11/EW Opening 0.29656 12/EW Opening 0.22558 13/EW Closing 0.00865 Table 3.5-94 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹2 GlNNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu 0.2 Fz.nal Relative Horz.zontal Y Dz.sp. N-S for a l rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Closing 0.14172 1/2 Opening 0.05469 2/NW Opening 0.08703 SW/3 Closing 0.15461 3/4 Closing 0.00441 4/NW Opening 0.15902 SW/5 Closing 0.16020 5/6 Opening 0.01021 6/NW Opening 0.14999 SW/7 Closing 0.21596 7/8 Closing 0.00728 8/9 Opening 0.04089 9/10 Opening 0.01931 10/NW Opening 0.16304 SW/11 Closing 0.14911 11/12 Opening '.07554 12/13 Closing 0.11141 13/NW Opening 0.18498 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 219
| |
| | |
| ~ 4 Table 3.5-95 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LCN3 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case N3 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Fina Re ative Horizonta Disp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Opening 0.05460 WW/2 Opening 0.00068 1/3 Closing 0.04984 2/4 Opening 0.00263 3/5 Closing 0.00095 4/6 Opening 0.00092 5/7 Closing 0.01745 5/8 Closing 0.00725 6/8 Closing 0.00766 6/9 Closing 0.03309 6/10 Closing 0.01143 8/11 Closing 0.03167 9/12 Opening 0.02419 10/13 Opening 0.02216 11/Ew Opening 0.03511 12/Ew Opening 0.00469 13/Ew Closing 0.01494 Table 3.5-96 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. LCN3 GlNNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case N3 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Final Relative Horizontal Disp. N-S for all racks:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude SW/1 Closing 0.00154 1/2 Opening 0.01310 2/NW Closing 0.01156 Sw/3 Closing 0.00911 3/4 Opening 0.00329 4/NW Opening 0.00582 SW/5 Closing 0.00878 5/6 Opening 0.01283 6/Nw Closing 0.00405 Sw/7 Closing 0.00593
| |
| , 7/8 Closing 0.02483 8/9 Closing 0.02980 9/10 Opening 0.05161 10/NW Opening 0.00894 Sw/11 Closing 0.06063 11/12 Opening 0.04096 12/13 Closing 0.03245 13/NW Opening 0.05212 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 220
| |
| | |
| ~ - ~
| |
| P
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-97 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LCN4 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case g4 - Unconsolidated Fuel SSE - Mu = 0.5 Fa.na Re atzve Horizonta X Dz.sp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Closing 0.00009 WW/2 Closing 0 '0831 1/3 Opening 0.00309 2/4 Opening 0.01036 3/S Closing 0.01917 4/6 Closing 0.00719 S/7 Opening 0.00068 5/8 Opening 0.03986 6/8 Opening 0.02883 6/9 Opening 0.04392 6/io Opening 0.00794 8/11 Closing 0.03125 9/i2 Closing 0.04378 10/i3 Opening 0.09056 11/EW Opening 0.00755 12/EW Opening 0.00499 13/EW Closing 0.09336 Table 3.5-98 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LCI4 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case N4 Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE Mu = 0.5 Fz.na Relative Horxzonta Y Dz.sp. N-S for a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Closing 0.00123 1/2 Opening 0.02532 2/NW Closing 0.02409 SW/3 Closing 0.02282 3/4 Opening 0.00394 4/NW Opening 0.01888 sw/s Closing 0.00477 s/6 Closing 0.01137 6/NW Opening 0.01614 SW/7 Closing 0.05839 7/8 Closing 0.02307 8/9 Opening 0.02080 9/10 Closing 0.03080 10/NW Opening 0.09145 SW/11 Closing 0.08363 11/12 Closing 0.01634 12/13 Opening 0.05166 13/NW Opening 0.04832 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 221
| |
| | |
| n"rrC . ~ <, Was . ~ ~ r r;.. w ~ !~ 'H'r r r1 rj
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-99 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹5 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE Mu = 0.8 Fz.na Re ative Hors.zonta X Dz.sp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Opening 0.03092 WW/2 Opening 0.00170 1/3 Closing 0.03663 2/4 Closing 0.00422 3/S Opening 0.01847 4/6 Opening 0.03023 S/7 Opening 0.01569 S/8 Opening 0.01356 6/8 Closing 0.00138 6/9 Closing 0.02269 6/10 Closing 0.02717 8/11 Opening 0.02142 9/12 Opening 0.04883 10/13 Opening 0.05146 11/EW Closing 0.04775 12/EW Closing 0.05385 13/EW Closing 0.05200 Table 3.5-100 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹5 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE Mu = 0.8 Fina Re atzve Hors.zonta Y Da.sp. N-S or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Opening 0.05042 1/2 Closing 0.01951 2/NW Closing 0.03091 SW/3 Opening 0.00662 3/4 Closing 0.00933 4/NW Opening 0.00271 sw/s Closing 0.00474 s/6 Closing 0.00104 6/NW Opening 0.00577 SW/7 Closing 0.05207 7/8 Closing 0.00228 8/9 Closing 0.04859 9/10 Opening 0.03773 10/NW Opening 0.06522 SW/11 Closing 0.05260 11/12 Closing 0.01983 12/13 Opening 0.01740 13/NW Opening 0.05503 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 222
| |
| | |
| I il >>t A ~
| |
| ~ 4 ~
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-101 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹6 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹6 Consolidated Fuel SSE - Mu = 0.8 Fina Re atzve Hors.zonta X Dz.sp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Cap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Opening 0.00454 WW/2 Opening 0 '0660 1/3 Opening 0.00229 2/4 Closing 0.00002 3/5 Closing 0.00276 4/6 Closing 0.00357 5/7 Closing 0.00037 5/8 Opening 0.01589 6/8 Opening 0.01696 6/9 Closing 0.00648 6/io Opening 0.00103 8/ii Closing 0.05180 9/12 Opening 0.00467 io/i3 Opening 0.02688 11/EW Opening 0.03183 12/EW Closing 0.00120 13/EW Closing 0.03092 Table 3.5-102 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹6 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹6 - Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Fa.na Re atzve Horz.zonta Y Dx,sp. N-S for a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Opening 0.05979 1/2 Closing 0.02341 2/NW Closing 0.03639 SW/3 Closing 0.00631 3/4 Closing 0.00124 4/NW Opening 0.00755 sw/5 Closing 0.01072 5/6 Opening 0.00798 6/NW Opening 0.00274 SW/7 Closing 0.01255 7/8 Closing 0.02777 8/9 Closing 0.00780 9/10 Opening 0.02677 10/NW Opening 0.02135 SW/11 Closing 0.04537 11/12 Opening 0.01638 12/13 Closing 0.02028 13/NW Opening 0.04927 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 223
| |
| | |
| ~ Q - ~ 1 I
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-103 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹7 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹7 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Fina Re atzve Hors.zonta X Dzsp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude (in)
| |
| WW/1 Opening 0 '0423 WW/2 Opening 0.04590 1/3 Opening 0.00530 2/4 Closing 0 '4230 3/S Opening 0.01537 4/6'/7 Closing 0.00441 Opening 0.03429 S/8 Opening 0.03364 6/8 Opening 0.05936 6/9 Opening 0.00890 6/10 Opening 0.05444 8/11 Closing 0.21570 9/12 Closing 0.27550 10/13 Closing 0.03807 11/EW Opening 0.15716 12/EW Opening 0.26742 13/EW Closing 0.01555 Table 3.5-104 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹7 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹7 Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE Mu = 0.2 Fa.nal Relative Horzzonta Y Dz.sp. N-S or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Closing 0.05938 1/2 Opening 0 '2715 2/NW Opening 0.03223 SW/3 Closing 0.04946 3/4 Closing 0.03572 4/NW Opening 0.08518 sw/s Closing 0.10125 s/6 Closing 0.06297 6/NW Opening 0.16422 SW/7 Closing 0.20051 7/8 Closing 0.01969 8/9 Opening 0.02984 9/10 Opening 0 '4274 10/NW Opening 0.14762 SW/11 Closing 0.18976 11/12 Opening 0.04303 12/13 Closing 0.03887 13/NW Opening 0.18560 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 224
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-105 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LCN8 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case NS Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Fina Re ative Horizonta X Disp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Cap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Closing 0.00249 WW/2 Closing 0.00309 1/3 Closing 0.00010 2/4 Opening 0.00014 3/S Opening 0.00041 4/6 Opening 0.00022 S/7 Opening 0.00038 S/8 Opening 0.00062 6/8 Opening 0.00116 6/9 Closing 0.00595 6/10 Opening 0.00029 8/11 Opening 0.00085 9/12 Opening 0.00921 10/13 Closing 0.00965 11/EW Opening 0.00071 12/EW Closing 0.00054 13/EW Opening 0.01209 Table 3.5-106 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LCI8 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case NS Consolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.8 Fina Re ative Horizonta Y Disp. N-S for a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Opening 0.00378 1/2 Closing 0.00074 2/NW Closing 0.00304 SW/3 Closing 0.00012 3/4 Opening 0.00016 4/NW Closing 0.00004 SW/S Closing 0.00459 S/6 Closing 0.00071 6/NW Opening 0.00530 SW/7 Closing 0.00452 7/8 Closing 0.00176 8/9 Opening 0.00041 9/10 Opening 0.00196 10/NW Opening 0.00391 SW/11 Closing 0.00873 11/12 Closing 0.01088 12/13 Opening 0.01158 13/NW Opening 0 '0803 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 225
| |
| | |
| i>%ca Table 3.5-107 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LCN9 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case N9 - Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Fz.na Re ative Hors.zonta X Dz.sp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Closing 0.01606 WW/2 Opening 0.00568 1/3 Opening 0.00633 2/4 Closing 0.00792 3/5 Opening 0.01220 4/6 Opening 0.01036 5/7 Opening 0.02389 5/8 Closing 0.01108 6/8 Closing 0.01672 6/9 Closing 0.02163 6/10 Closing 0.01534 8/11 Opening 0.04194 9/12 Opening 0.00088 10/13 Closing 0.09881 11/EW Closing 0.03334 12/EW Opening 0.01264 13/EW Opening 0.10603 Table 3.5-108 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC59 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case 49 Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Fina Re atzve Hors.zonta Y Da.sp. N-S for a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Closing 0.01179 1/2 Opening 0.05142 2/NW Closing 0.03963 SW/3 Closing 0.01680 3/4 Opening 0.00275 4/NW Opening 0.01405 SW/5 Opening 0.00012 5/6 Closing 0.02273 6/NW Opening 0.02260 SW/7 Opening 0.00018 7/8 Closing 0.01966 8/9 Opening 0.03419 9/10 Closing 0.00781 10/NW Closing 0.00691 SW/11 Closing 0.03325 11/12 Opening 0.03952 12/13 Closing 0.01329 13/NW Opening 0.00702 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 226
| |
| | |
| k Table 3.5-109 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. LC¹10 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Fz.na Re atave Horzzonta Dz.sp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| Ww/1 Closing 0.01643 WW/2 Opening 0.02205 1/3 Opening 0.01620 2/4 Closing 0.01630 3/5 Opening 0.00108 4/6 Closing 0.00608 5/7 Opening 0.00685 5/8 Opening 0.01479 6/8 Opening 0.01596 6/9 Closing 0.01317 6/10 Closing 0.04331 8/ii Opening 0.06224 9/i2 Closing 0.03278 10/i3 Closing 0.08206 11/Ew Closing 0.07787 12/Ew Opening 0.04628 13/Ew Opening 0.12570 Table 3.5-110 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹10 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Final Relative Horizontal Dxsp. N-S for all rac s:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Closing 0.06940 1/2 Opening 0.01541 2/NW Opening '0.05399 Sw/3 Closing 0.01715 3/4 Opening 0.00815 4/NW Opening 0.00900 SW/5 Closing 0.02408 5/6 Opening 0.03233 6/NW Closing 0.00825 Sw/7 Closing 0.01177 7/8 Closing 0.00704 8/9 Opening 0.02116 9/10 Closing 0.00155 10/NW Closing 0.00081 Sw/11 Closing 0.02675 11/12 Opening 0.02555 12/13 Closing 0.01133 13/NW Opening 0.01253 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 227
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-111 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LC¹11 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Fina Re atzve Hors.zonta Dzsp. E-W or a racks:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Opening 0.04614 WW/2 Opening 0.02864 1/3 Closing 0.07518 2/4 Closing 0.02314 3/5 Opening 0.03575 4/6 Opening 0.00171 5/7 Opening 0.02846 5/8 Closing 0.07895 6/8 Closing 0.07944 6/9 Opening 0.00281 6/10 Opening 0.02302 8/ii Opening 0.03253 9/i2 Closing 0.06976 10/i3 Closing 0.02095 11/EW Opening 0.03970 12/EW Opening 0.05973 13/EW Closing 0.00929 Table 3.5-112 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LC¹11 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Fz.nal Re atzve'ors.zonta Da.sp. N-S for all racks:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Closing 0.13654 1/2 Opening 0.06351 2/NW Opening 0.07303 SW/3 Closing 0.01286 3/4 Opening 0.00753 4/NW Opening 0.00533 SW/5 Closing 0.00882 5/6 Closing 0.00848 6/NW Opening 0 '1730 SW/7 Opening 0.01509 7/8 Closing 0.07944 8/9 Closing 0.01851 9/10 Opening 0 '3341 10/NW Opening 0.04945 SW/11 Closing 0.05967 11/12 Opening 0.02935 12/13 Closing 0.03841 13/NW Opening 0.06872 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 228
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-113 Final Rack Relative East-West Disp. - LCg12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case N12 - Mixed Fuel OBE Mu = Mixed Fina Re ative Horizonta X Disp. E-W or a rac s:
| |
| Cap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| WW/1 Closing 0.00699 WW/2 Closing 0.00033 1/3 Opening 0.00579 2/4 Opening 0.00591 3/5 Closing 0.00297 4/6 Closing 0.01073 5/7 Opening 0.06792 5/8 Opening 0.00485 6/8 Opening 0.00583 6/9 Closing 0 '0394 6/10 Opening 0.01772 8/11 Closing 0.00802 9/12 Opening 0.02732 10/13 Closing 0.02090 11/EW Opening 0.00734 12/EW Closing 0.01823 13/EW Opening 0.00833 Table 3.5-114 Final Rack Relative North-South Disp. - LCN12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case N12 - Mixed Fuel OBE Mu = Mixed Fina Relative Horizonta Disp. N-S or a l racks:
| |
| Gap Absolute Rack/Rack Status Magnitude(in)
| |
| SW/1 Opening 0.00002 1/2 Closing 0.04807 2/NW Opening 0.04804 SW/3 Opening 0.00094 3/4 Closing 0.00468 4/NW Opening 0.00375 SW/5 Opening 0.00257 5/6 Closing 0.00058 6/NW Closing 0.00199 SW/7 Opening 0.01027 7/8 Closing 0.01390 8/9 Closing 0.01017 9/10 Closing 0.02591 10/NW Opening 0.03971 SW/11 Closing 0.00624 11/12 Closing 0.05434 12/13 Opening 0.05529 13/NW Opening 0.00530 51-1258768 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 229
| |
| | |
| ti'%, ~ I 3.5.3.1.8.3 Final Rack Rotations for Each Load Case Table 3.5-115 Final Rack Rotations LCN1 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 -0.00187 -0.10722 2 -0.00084 -0.04802 3 0.00004 0.00232 4 -0.00012 -0.00668 5 0.00032 0.01806 6 0.00009 0.00521 7 0.00035 0.02006 8 0.00078 0.04464 9 0.00128 0.07348 10 0.00027 0.01554 11 -0.00059 -0.03353 12 0.00102 0.05866 13 0.00044 0.02527 Table 3.5-116 Final Rack Rotations - LC52 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.2 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 -0.00180 -0.10340 2 -0.00054 -0.03108 3 -0.00014 -0.00784 4 -0.00029 -0.01672 5 0.00070 0.04014 6 0.00014 0.00827 7 0.00020 0.01139 8 0.00257 0.14719 9 0.00104 0.05966 10 0.00171 0.09772 11 0.00241 0.13786 12 0.00218 0.12486 13 0.00337 0.19320 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 230
| |
| | |
| 4151 Table 3.5-117 Final Rack Rotations LCg3 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 53 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians , Degrees 1 -0.00035 -0.02001 2 0.00003 0.00150 3 -0.00007 -0.00393 4 -0.00003 -0.00168 5 -0.00001 -0.00055 6 0.00001 0.00068 7 0.00084 0.04831 8 0.00095 0.05425 9 0.00110 0.06330 10 0.00068 0.03875 11 0.00071 0.04072 12 0.00222 0.12708 13 0.00080 0.04609 Table 3.5-118 Final Rack Rotations - LCQ4 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 54 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.5 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 0 '0009 0.00506 2 0.00010 0.00551 3 0.00012 0.00713 4 -0.00003 -0.00197 5 0.00008 0.00436 6 -0.00009 -0.00542 7 -0.00054 -0.03118 8 -0.00063 -0.03630 9 0.00022 0.01281 10 -0.00017 -0.00999 11 0.00186 0.10635 12 0.00208 0.11894 13 0.00192 0.10978 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 231
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-119 Final Rack Rotations LCg5 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case I5Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 -0.00029 -0.01645 2 -0.00067 -0.03828 3 -0.00022 -0.01269 4 -0.00010 -0.00583 5 -0.00014 -0.00830 6 0.00004 0.00208 7 -0.00079 -0.04528 8 -0.00056 -0.03183 9 0.00033 0.01918 10 -0.00017 -0.00950 11 0.00029 0.01665.
| |
| 12 -0.00011 -0.00611 13 -0.00169 -0.09679 Table 3.5-120 Final Rack Rotations LCN6 GENNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case N6 Consolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.8 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 -0.00019 -0.01111 2 -0.00018 -0.01018 3 -0.00005 -0.00305 4 -0.00006 -0.00352 5 -0.00000 -0.00022 6 0.00000 0.00027 7 0.00024 0.01367 8 0.00083 0.04735 9 0.00031 0.01753 10 0.00031 0.01797 11 0.00103 0.05896 12 0.00077 0.04432 13 0.00077 0,.04391 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 232
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-121 Final Rack Rotations LCN7 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case 57 Unconsolidated Fuel SSE Mu = 0.2 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 -0.00041 -0.02349 2 -0.00046 -0.02647 3 -0.00029 -0.01673 4 -0.00007 -0.00418 5 0.00043 0.02491 6 0.00034 0.01946 7 -0.00039 -0.02234 8 0.00058 0.03297 9 0.00095 0.05457 10 0.00078 0.04482 11 0.00238 0.13637 12 0.00250 0.14296 13 0.00183 0.10472 Table 3.5-122 Final Rack Rotations LCNS GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case I8 Consolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.8 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 -0.00000 -0.00000 2 -0.00000 -0.00000 3 0.00000 0.00000 4 -0.00000 -0.00000 5 -0.00000 -0.00000 6 -0.00000 -0.00000 7 -0.00000 -0.00000 8 0.00000 0.00005 9 -0.00001 -0.00067 10 0.00000 0.00000 11 0.00022 0.01275 12 0.00035 0.01986 13 0.00004 0.00212 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 233
| |
| | |
| HP L, E Table 3.5-123 Final Rack Rotations LC59 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹9 Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 -0.00013 -0.00762 2 -0.00022 -0 '1233 3 0.00005 0.00297 4 -0.00001 -0.00038 5 -0.00003 -0.00171 6 -0.00002 -0.00132 7 -0.00002 -0.00133 8 -0.00004 -0.00225 9 0.00047 0.02666 10 0.00005 0.00302 ll 12 0.00038 0.00074 0.02201 0.04259 13 0.00010 0.00590 Table 3.5-124 Final Rack Rotations LCg10 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 Unconsolidated Fuel OBE Mu = 0.2 Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 0.00026 0.01470 2 -0.00017 -0.00991 3 -0.00008 -0.00477 4 -0.00004 -0.00228 5 -0.00002 -0.00122 6 -0.00001 -0.00051 7 0.00038 0.02198 8 -0.00006 -0.00364 9 0.00072 0.04113 10 0.00035 0.02029 11 0.00001 0.00041 12 0.00045 0.02575 13 -0.00019 -0.01066 51-125S768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 234
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-125 Final Rack Rotations LCg11 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 Mixed Fuel SSE Mu = Mixed Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 0 '0090 0.05143 2 0.00057 0.03237 3 -0.00049 -0.02835 4 -0.00001 -0.00050 5 -0.00007 -0.00393 6 0.00006 0.00321 7 0.00091 0.05229 8 0.00048 0.02730 9 0.00079 0.04531 10 0.00090 0.05152 11 0.00003 0.00152 12 0.00024 0.01352 13 0.00040 0.02318 Table 3.5-126 Final Rack Rotations - LCN12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 Mixed Fuel OBE Mu = Mixed Final Rack Rotations ROTZ (About Vertical)
| |
| Rack Radians Degrees 1 -0.00001 -0.00040 2 0.00023 0.01331 3 0.00000 0.00000
| |
| -0.00020 -0.01164 5 -0.00000 -0.00009 6 -0.00002 -0.00136 7 -0.00057 -0.03250 8 -0.00002 -0.00097 9 0.00024 0.01360 10 -0.00067 -0.03824 11 -0.00003 '-0.00168 12 -0.00147 -0.08435 13 0.00001 0.00044 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 235
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.8.4 Representative Plots The following plots are representative of all the plots that were obtained for each load case.
| |
| Figure 3.5-43 Vertical Leg Force Fz, Rack I, Leg 1 - LC¹l
| |
| ( I I of 02)
| |
| FZ IO l2 TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 51-12587 8-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 236
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-44 Sum of Vert. Leg Forces Fz, Rack 1 - LC01
| |
| ( I 10002) 2b R1FZ 18 lb 10 18 12 lb TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 51-125 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 237
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-45 Rack 1 Horizontal Force Fy - LC¹1
| |
| ( ~ Ioee2)
| |
| Rck1FY
| |
| -l000 2 I0 IS 22 l2 TINE GINNA WPM, LC ¹1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 51- 25 7 -01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 238
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-46 Rack 1 Moment Mx - LC¹1
| |
| ( s 104 t4)
| |
| Rck1MX 7
| |
| -1250 2 10 I8 12 TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 51-12587 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 239
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-47 Rack 7 Moment My - LCQ1 (I losel)
| |
| Rck7MY 10 12 TIME GINNA WPM, LC C1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 1-1 5 7 -01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 240
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-48 Fuel/Rack Impact Lds. +X, Rack 1 Top - LC01
| |
| ( II0012I R1TGFXP I I 25 IO 'IS GINNA WPM, LC ¹1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 51-12587 -01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 241
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-49 Relative Displ. DX Rack5/Rack7, Top - LC¹1
| |
| ( s 10t" I) 2~
| |
| DX-5-7 2o5 10 18 12 TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 51-12587 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 242
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-50 Rel. Displ. DX Rack5/Rack7, Base - LC¹1
| |
| ( 110s-2)
| |
| DX-5-7 10 IS l2 Id TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 51-1 87 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 243
| |
| | |
| ~ %1I I.
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-51 Rel. Displ. DY Rackl/Rack2, Base - LC¹1
| |
| ( ~ I ofo "2)
| |
| DY-1-2 21 I0 IS 22 l2 Ie TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹1, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.8, SSE 51-125 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 244
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-52 Vertical Leg Force Fz, Rack 1, Leg 1 - LC¹2
| |
| ( ~ 100021 7
| |
| FZ 10 18 22 12 1e TINE GINNA WPM, LC ¹2, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 51-125 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 245
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-53 Sum of Vertical Leg Forces Fz, Rack 1 - LC¹2
| |
| ( s l 0002}
| |
| 27 2e 23
| |
| <<C R1FZ IS 17 le l 500 10 IS 22 12 le GINNA WPM, LC ¹2, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 51- 25 7 8- 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 246
| |
| | |
| I Figure 3.5-54 Rack 1 Horizontal Force Fy - LC02
| |
| (>>oee2>
| |
| Rck1FY "2
| |
| "800 10 18 22 12 GINNA WPM, LC 02, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 51-125 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 247
| |
| | |
| Xh4 v ~
| |
| Figure 3.5-55 Rack 1 Moment Mx - LC¹2
| |
| (~ l00t4)
| |
| Rck1MX l 000 2 l0 ls 22 l2 l6 TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹2, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 51-125 7 8-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 248
| |
| | |
| 1<a.sa>c.r1 ~ s ii * * ~ . W4a " ~ ~ ~ \ l4 L . t% 4 ~
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-56 Rack 7 Moment My - LC02
| |
| ( s10ee3) 1 cC Rck7MY
| |
| -e250 2 10 12 le TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹2, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 1-125 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 249
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-57 Fuel/Rack Impact Loads +X, Rack 1 Top - LC¹2 t ~ 1041)
| |
| R1TGFXP CC
| |
| -7 10 18 22 12 TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹2, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 51-125 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 250
| |
| | |
| j\
| |
| Figure 3.5-58 Relative Displ. DX Rack5/Rack7, Top - LC¹2
| |
| ( I1000-1) 20 DX-5-7
| |
| <<C
| |
| -2 10 18 22 12 TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹2, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 1-1 5 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 251
| |
| | |
| 1 ~
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-59 Relative Displ. DX Rack5/Rack7, Base - LC¹2
| |
| ( ~ 1000-l) 20 20 DX-5-7 1.6 le 0
| |
| -l.2 2 l0 IS 12 T1ME GINNA WPM, LC ¹2, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 51-1 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 252
| |
| | |
| 1 f ~
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-60 Relative Displ. DY Rackl/Rack2, Base - LC¹2 (s loco-I)
| |
| <<b
| |
| <<C DY-1-2 IO IS 22 l2 TIME GINNA WPM, LC ¹2, Unconsolidated Fuel, mu =0.2, SSE 51-125 7 - 1 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 253
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.9 Support Leg and Bearing Pad Analysis The model shown in Figure 3.5-61 was used to determine the stresses in the support leg, and bearing stresses in the concrete for dead-weiglit, thermal and seismic (OBE 8'c SSE) loadings. Boussinesq's solution for elastic half-space (Reference 3.35) was also used to estimate bearing stresses in the concrete.
| |
| The pool liner is a 1/4 inch ASTM A240 Type 304 SS plate. The support pads are 6.6929 inch diameter ASTM A479 Type 304L SS bar stock. The following material properties (and allowables) were used in this evaluation:
| |
| E (304L)=27.9 x 10 psi @ 150' (27.71 x 10 psi @180')
| |
| a (304L)=8.74E-6 in/in'F 180' (8.67E-6 in/in'F 150')
| |
| Table 3.5-127 Material Properties for the Pool Liner and Support Legs (Reference 3.19)
| |
| ...,..',::.Ope'r'atiiig':;Temp''::(1:50,:,:,F)'",:::::,'::.:::.,';:Ta:';,=.',',
| |
| :;:;To':,.; ':A'bn'o'riiial;:Temp'eratu'r'e'.
| |
| ,(1:80...'aterial Type Sy Su Sy Su A240 Type 304 18.3 27.5 73.0 18.0 26.0 71.8 A479 Type 304L 15.7 23.15 68.1 15.7 22.0 67.0 Note: All allowables are in ksi The following per leg dead-weight, thermal, and OBE and SSE horizontal and vertical loads (i.e.
| |
| support pad reactions) were taken &om the results ofthe 3-D Full Rack and 2-D Multi-Rack analyses and used in the present analysis. The loads pertain to the new racks only.
| |
| Table 3.5-128 Forces Used in Qualification of the Pool Liner and Support Legs
| |
| 'Dead Wei ht D 18,280 Thermal Ta 14,624 OBE 14,554 42,476 SSE (E') 22,812 52 794
| |
| 'ncludes deadweight in vertical force.
| |
| maximum friction load allowed before slippage of the support leg occurs (less than calculated thermal load) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report - Final Draft Page 254
| |
| | |
| h
| |
| * 4
| |
| ~'
| |
| | |
| In the rack analysis models, each rack was represented by only the 4 corner legs. For example, a majority of the new racks in the pool have been designed to have twelve support legs. The 3-D single rack model has four legs to represent the twelve total legs. Therefore, the load per support leg is found by dividing by 12/4 or 3. The maximum support vertical leg loads for SSE were found at a single rack with eight support legs (rack number 9 for the vertical load and rack number 12 for the maximum horizontal load). Therefore, the load was divided by 8/4 or 2 to determine the maximum load per support leg. The vertical load was applied in the Z direction (compression) and the horizontal load was the Square Root Sum of the Squares of the X and Y directions (refer to Figure 3.5-61). For the seismic load cases, there existed significant lateral (horizontal) loads on the support leg.
| |
| Support leg stresses at two locations were evaluated. The first location (case 1) evaluated was at the location of the cylinder's holes (4.05 inches below the bottom of the baseplate). The cross-sectional area (Ag = 6.90 in, and the section modulus (Sx) = 12.38 in'. This section was shown to produce the highest stresses.
| |
| The second location (case 2) was at the baseplate bottom (where moments are the largest). The cylinder's cross-sectional area (A,) = 13.33 in, and the section modulus (Sx) = 17.58 in'.
| |
| Figure 3.5 Support Leg Details RACK BASEPLATE f 374~ ~148 3.35 5.9! GUSSET PLATE SUPPORT LEG I$ 75 9 7 13 TCnax>
| |
| 0.9l 4 0 (nax)
| |
| I. 7 ~ SUPPORT I 669~ PAO 9'69999Ontal.
| |
| F vertICal 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report - Final Draft Page 255
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5 Support Leg Gusset Plate Details 1.06 I
| |
| i 0.394 I
| |
| 1.21
| |
| .00 1.7 I
| |
| I 1.87 I
| |
| +
| |
| 1.575 I I RACK 3.00 GUSS T LEG P T i l 2.10 3.5.3.1.9.1 Support Leg Analysis 3.5.3.1.9.1.1 Existing Rack Support Analysis Evaluation ofthe existing rack support was performed by comparison of new loads with the previous rack leg analysis (Reference 3.26). The following table gives the maximum loads of the new analysis compared with the previous analysis. Since the new rack analysis results in lower existing support loads than the previous analysis (Reference 3.26), existing racks and support loads are qualified per comparison to the previous rack analysis.
| |
| Table 3.5-129 Support Legs Force Comparison for Existing Racks (New vs. Old Analyses)
| |
| :"::;;,",':.':;,";;:P:U:;S:;::,To'ol<<'&-'Die':An'alysis;:"'.:-'"''ll":
| |
| .",:::.:', ..:::.::;:.':;::.';.:;!Ho'rIzontalILo'ad,,:,:,:,',:';::;,':,::
| |
| ..::. '<<:'",::I,;:";:I:::L'oads':,atISupp'oit:::Pad';:(Ibs)'',:';:.';:',;'.l!',;,.'. !I;','.i::;:::i:;.I'.,:,",.'<<Loa<<ds:,at'''.Su<<ppo'rt".,Pa<<'dI'(1bs);.:!;:,::::::.::'>NWNP Standard Fuel Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical SSE 141,939 237,862 87,636 193,440 Consolidated Fuel SSE (E') 151,144 282,782 103,596 250,680
| |
| 'ncludes deadweight in vertical force. SSE loads are factored by 1.20 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report - Final Draft Page 256
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.9.1.2 Concrete'and Spent Fuel Pool Liner Qualification The 28 days cured compressive strength of the spent fuel pool concrete is 3,000 psi. The average pressure (bearing) under the bearing pad shall not exceed the design basis pressure for dead load or seismic. The bearing stresses and comparison to allowables are presented in Table 3.5-130.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.9.1.2.1 Average Concrete Bearing Stress The maximum bearing stresses in the concrete are calculated below, whereas the average bearing stresses are calculated by taking the maximum vertical support leg loads determined from the single and multi-rack analyses and dividing by the area of the bearing pad as follows:
| |
| GBEARING=P/A, where A=md'/4=35.18 in d = 6.693 in. (support pad diameter)
| |
| ~ BEARING, DEAD LOAD 18,280 / 35.18 520 psi.
| |
| + BEARING, OBE+ DL 42,476 / 35.18 1,207 psi.
| |
| + BEARING, SSE+ 52,794 / 35.18 1,501 psi.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.9.1.2.2 Boussinesq's Solution As another check for bearing stresses, Boussinesq's solution for elastic half-space is used (Reference 3.35, pages 398 through 402) . In this method, it is assumed that a normal force, P, is acting on the plane boundary of a semi-infinite solid as shown in the following figure. Allresults are summarized in Table 3.5-130.
| |
| Figure 3.5-63 Stress Locations For Boussinesq's Bearing Solution 8
| |
| C A 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report - Final Draft Page 257
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-130 Summation of Concrete Stresses Maximum Slab Bearin 520 3,570 Boussinesq's Solution 779 3,570 D+E Maximum Slab Bearin 1,207 3,570 Boussinesq's Solution 1,811 3,570 D+E'aximum Slab Bearin 1,501 3,570 Boussinesq's Solution 2,251 3,570 Concrete's bearing allowable = $ (0.85)fc' 0.70(0.85)3000 psi
| |
| * 2' 3,570 psi
| |
| 'ince Area of concrete >>area of pad = xd'/4 = 35.18 in', bearing allowable is increased by factor of 2 (Reference 3.20, section 10.15)
| |
| For the evaluation of compressive stresses in the concrete, the specified Boussinesq solution is considered valid.
| |
| Table 3.5-131 Summation of Spent Fuel Pool Liner Stresses
| |
| ,','::;'''A'llo'wable','Stress','(p'si)''"''';
| |
| .','!:.'.I::';::.'j''',:,'':.:'.'.:'':;,::::;Corn Liner Bearin Stress 1,207 0.9* =23,400 D+E'iner Bearing Stress 1,501 0.9~(Fy)=23,400 Pool Liner's Allowable Stress is from Reference 3.21 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report - Final Draft Page 258
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-132 Summation of Support Leg Stresses D evel A Prim Membrane m 6,156 1>> S =15,700 Primary Membrane+ Bending m+ Pb 16,995 1.54(S) = 23,550 D+E evel B Prim Membrane Pm 6,156 1.334 S =20,880 Primary Membrane+ Bending m+Pb 16,995 1.995*(S) = 31,320 Avera e Shear Stress 2,109 0.6* S = 9,420 D+E'vel D Prim Membrane m 7,651 1.2* S = 26,448 Primary Membrane+ Bending Pm+ Pb 24,640 1.8*(Sy) = 39,672 Average Shear Stress 3,306 0.42*(Su) = 28,123 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report - Final Draft Page 259
| |
| | |
| 3.53.1.10 Rack Thermal Stress Analysis Two thermal accident conditions were considered. Analysis is performed on ANSYS 3D single rack plate model ofthe rack 88 (2B) with the largest plan projection (footprint), as well as largest number of cells. As a consequence, this willproduce largest increase in overall linear dimensions of the rack structure.
| |
| : 1) Normal or Upset Condition (To) - This thermal condition is produced when an isolated storage location has a fuel assembly generating heat at the maximum postulated rate. Surrounding storage tubes are assumed to contain no fuel assemblies. In lieu of running a full thermal analysis to ~
| |
| determine the actual temperature distribution along the inner and outer hot cell walls, it was conservatively assumed that the outside tube wall temperature remains at 150'F, while the inner wall temperature is kept at 212'F. This results in a conservative 62'F temperature differential across the 2 mm (0.0787 in) thick tube wall. This maximum DT assumption envelopes the actual thermal distribution in the cell walls due to a maximum outlet water bulk temperature which exits the cell at 224'F, and linearly drops to the tube inlet temperature of 150'F. The hot cell outside water bulk.
| |
| temperature is assumed to be 150'F, and temperature drop through the wall's adjacent boundary layers is not considered. Due to this temperature differential, thermal growth of the hot cell induces membrane and bending stresses in the rack base plate and tube walls.
| |
| Stress contours in rack cells around middle hot cell are shown in Figures 3.5-64 (top plane) and 3.5-65 (mid plane). Half of the rack is shown, since the stress distribution is symmetric about NS direction. Base plate stress contours are shown in Figures 3.5-66 (top plane) and 3.5-67 (mid plane).
| |
| Summarized, the local hot cell maximum thermal stresses are:
| |
| a) Tube walls: membrane = 3,837 psi; membrane+bending = 9,856 psi b) Base plate: membrane = 1,198 psi; membrane+bending = 5,941 psi 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 260
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-64 Rack Tubes Stress Contours - To (Top Plane)
| |
| ANSYS 6>
| |
| NOV 71000 20:$ 1:60 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLVTION STEP<<1 SVB <<I TIME<<1 SlNT QVO)
| |
| TOP DllX<<.007145 SMN $ N$ 1 SMX <<9060 SMXB 24004 A <<5$ 2N0$
| |
| B 1047 C 2742 D <<$ 0$ d E <<4051 F <<0026 0 <<7120 H 0214 I <<9009 RO58 RaaX 28 (Iixs) Thermal Cond. To lNormaB Figure 3.5-65 Rack Tubes Stress Contours - To (Mid Plane)
| |
| ANSYS 6.2 Nov 71910 20.62Nd PLOT NO. 2 NODAL SOLVTION STEP i SVB <<1 TIME<<1 BINT BRAVO)
| |
| MIDDLE D MX <<.007145 SMN <<5290 SMX <<$ 007 A 2102d7 B <<04$ .07d C <<1070 D 149d E <<1021 F <<2047 O <<277$
| |
| H <<$ 190 I <<$ 024 RO58 Rack 28 (I ix9) Than<<el Cond.'To'io>mal) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 261
| |
| | |
| CI l'
| |
| p ~,
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-66 Base Plate Stress Contours - To (Top Plane)
| |
| ANSYS 62 NOV 7 1008 20:55A3 PLOT NO. 2 NODALSOL(mON STEP<<1 SIIS <<1
| |
| %IE<<1 SINT (AVG)
| |
| TOP DMX <<.003102 SMN <<1527$
| |
| SMX <<5011 8MX8<<15l77
| |
| ~
| |
| A <<35IA02 8 ~ 1003 C <<1881 D
| |
| E <<2Q78 F <<383'
| |
| <<e205 H <<4053 I <<5811 ROLE Rack 28 (11xQ) Thermal Cond. 'To'Nonna8 Figure 3.5-67 Base Plate Stress Contours - To (Mid Plane)
| |
| ANSYS 62 NOV 7 1008 20:SSM PLOT NO. 1 NO DAL SOLUllON STE P<<1 SVS ~ I TIME SINT (AVG)
| |
| MID DMX <<.003102 SMN <<18AM SMX <<1108 A ~.10 8 <<2133II C ~.581 D <<e75.822 E @$ 7.082
| |
| <<73IL302
| |
| <<880.543
| |
| <<1001
| |
| ~ 1132 ROSE Rack 28 (11xQ) Thermal Cond. "To'Nanna!)
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 262
| |
| : 2) Abnormal Condition (Ta) - This thermal condition is produced when the pool water bulk temperature reaches a maximum allowable value of 180'F, when auxiliary pumps are activated.
| |
| Reference temperature with no thermally induced stresses is assumed to be normal pool operating temperature of 150'F. Legs are fixed to the pool liner (Figure 3.5-68).
| |
| Stress contours at the bottom of the corner rack tubes are shown in Figures 3.5-69 (top plane) and 3.5-70 (mid plane). Base plate stress contours are shown in Figures 3.5-71 (top plane) and 3.5-72 (mid plane).
| |
| Summarized, thermally induced stresses are:
| |
| a) Tube walls: membrane = 9,654 psi; membrane+bending = 9,803 psi b) Base plate: membrane = 596 psi; membrane+bending = 1,556 psi Figure 3.5-68 Deformed Base Plate with Legs - Ta ANSYS 0.2 HDV 7 1000 2$ OO:Id PLOT ND. 1 DISPIACEMEHT STEP<<1 SUB <<1 TIME<<1 RSYS<<O DMX <<.01d$ $ 0 SEPC<<72A12 DSCA<<$ 0220$
| |
| XV <<.042 YV <<.7221 ZV <<A200 DIST<<00.00 XF ~0$ 0$
| |
| YF <<$ 7.7$ 2 ZF M.OOS A<$ ~.022 PRECISE HIDDEN ROSE Rook t11n0) Thonnol Cond. To'LAooMont) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 263
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-69 Bottom Corner Tubes Stress Contours - Ta (Top Plane)
| |
| ANSYS $ 2 NOV 7 1008 23:14M PLOT NO. 1 NOOAL SOUJTION 6~1 6UB ~1 TIMEol
| |
| ~
| |
| BINT QVO)
| |
| TOP
| |
| ~
| |
| DMX n.018784 6MN 6M~00 6MX SMX&11008 A W201 B &030 C
| |
| 0 E ~$
| |
| o8238 F >7634 0 o8182 H ~8831 I o0470 ROSE Rack {11a0) Thermal Cond. fa Aedden9 Figure 3.5-70 Bottom Corner Tubes Stress Contours - Ta (Mid Plane)
| |
| ANSYS 6X NOV 7 1008 23:14I48 PLOTNO. 2 NOOAL SOUmON STEPrr1 SUS >I TIME 1 BINT QVO)
| |
| ~
| |
| MIDOLE OMX ~AIL8784 6MN ~10 6MX A ~2 B W0$ 8 C <<$ 684 0 ~11 E HAT F ~7483 0 rL8880 H 087 6 I &34 R08E Rack(11x0) Thermal Cond. Ta ~
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 264
| |
| | |
| t
| |
| * Figure 3.5-71 Base Plate Stress Contours - Ta (Top Plane)
| |
| ANSYS 52 NOV 8 1008 10:20:52 PLOT NO. 1 NODALSOLUTION STEP>>1 SUB>>1 TIME>>1 SINT (AVO)
| |
| TOP DMX>>.015S30 SMN>>188.778 SMX>>15SS SMXB>>1030 A>>24S.SOO 8 W00.048 C>>OS'>>708AOO f WOS.MO F>>1017 O>>1171 H>>1S25 I >>1470 ROLE Rack (11xQ) Thermal Cond. Ts AcddenD Figure 3.5-72 Base Plate Stress Contours - Ta (Mid Plane)
| |
| ANSYS 5>
| |
| NOV 81QQS 10:21:04 PLOT NO. 2 NODALSOLUllON STEP>>1 SUB>>1 TIME>>1 BINT (AVO)
| |
| MIDDLE DMX>>.01 S330 SMN >>23$ AQS SMX>>$0$ .24 A>>25S. 470 8>>205 A51 C>>33 A22 D>>37 404 f WSS~
| |
| F W1 .388 O W0541 H>>535282 575~
| |
| ROSE Rack (1 1x0) Thermal Cond. Ts (AcrddenD 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 265
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.11 Fatigue Analysis Applicable Codes and Standards - Structural fatigue analysis of the Rochester Gas and Electric's R. E. Ginna Unit 1 high density spent fuel storage racks and spent fuel pool liner is performedhere. Thedesignbyanalysisprocedureisemployed forqualification. Thenumberof earthquake cycles is per Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.3, Subsection II.2 (NUREG-0800).
| |
| The acceptable maximum stress range in various storage rack structures is based on the design criteria given in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
| |
| - Section III, Rules of Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Division I, 1989 edition. Hereafter it is referred to as the ASME Code (Reference 3.19). The acceptable maximum stress range in pool liner structures is based on the design criteria given in the American Institution of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, Part 5- Specification and Codes, Ninth Edition. Hereafter it is referred to as the AISC Code (Reference 3.21).
| |
| The fuel storage racks are considered Class 3 component supports and are plate and shell type supports. Design rules given in Subsection NF of the Code are utilized in the evaluation.
| |
| General requirements concerning stress determination, definitions, derivation of stress intensities, derivation of stress range, and classification of stresses are per Subsections NB and NF of the ASME Code.
| |
| Per Subsection NF of the Code, the secondary stresses evaluation is not required for the Class 3 supports. However, as a conservative approach, the range of primary plus secondary stresses is evaluated against the lower of two times yield strength or ultimate tensile strength at the design temperature.
| |
| For the pool liner, the definition of 'Loading Condition,'ype and location of 'stress category,'nd
| |
| 'allowable stress range're per Part 5, Appendix K of the AISC Code.
| |
| Fatigue Analysis and Methodology - Acronyms E Young's Modulus Fy Material yield strength Hz Hertz, Natural frequency in cycles per second OBE Operating Basis Earthquake SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake Sa Alternating stress intensity Sy Material yield strength Su Material tensile strength U 'Cumulative usage factor Other acronyms are explained where they first appear.
| |
| The earthquake stresses are included in the stress analysis. The structure is designed for five Operating Basis Earthquakes and one Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SRP Section 3.7.3, II.2, NUREG-0800).
| |
| 51.-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 266
| |
| | |
| Review of the natural frequencies of the structure indicates that the majority of the stresses in the structure will be induced during low frequency excitation. The frequency of the racks loaded with fuel assemblies ranges from 7 to 26 Hz (following table). The majority of rack first mode frequencies are less than 20 Hz. The frequency of the empty rack ranges from 24 to 72 Hz.
| |
| Being of a high frequency structures, the empty racks will behave like a rigid structure. Loaded spent fuel storage racks will induce the majority of stresses. Therefore, most of the stresses in the structure will be induced by a frequency of less than 20 Hz. For a conservative fatigue analysis, the stress cycles are taken at 20 cycles per second.
| |
| Spent Fuel Storage Racks - First Mode Frequency
| |
| ::;.':!::,:,':,''::',,':Ra'':;::,:;"::',:::;
| |
| ":,:::;Niimb'er'':;',..'-;':;:,-:;-;:,:~"',::,;::";-:,'Eiiip'ty',";R $ :;"::;::;:<<'I."I::.".'j,::IRacks;':With'4::'':::',.';.:,;''::.".;,:':
| |
| :'.!:,"~, Con's'olidated:Fu'el! I'",!:;::,;:
| |
| :iI':,'!I',~;I:;:;:;:l':i)<.Canisters <<;::.I,:: ':.'-l<<:;;:::I":
| |
| ,",';:.'.,::::N-':. S;:.',":;::,':,:,::::::.: '::;:::.::East'-':We'st', ~
| |
| ',::,';:East-.'..Wes't':.','-';Fr'equeiicy,'.:;-:".'.
| |
| 2;.F<<r<<equ<<e'ncy',.;;",;',".!East-'.West'::,'!:;Pre'quency'~:
| |
| ':,:Fieqii'eri'cy<<.,';;::: <<lFi'equeiicy'~i: ::::~Fr'e'qu'ency :
| |
| <<::<<'%y'z4.:cN:":YY. <<~; .<< '8Hz:"<<<<<<<<. ji<<<<
| |
| 1to6 60.2 71.7 21.8 26.1 16.7 19.8 2A 38.3 46.4 12.8 15.6 9.8 11.8 2B 40.9 46.2 13.7 15.5 10.4 11.8 3A 30.9 38.6 12.1 15.1 9.3 11.6 3B 29.9 37.5 11.8 14.7 9.1 11.3 3C 23.7 38.5 9.2 15.0 7.1 11.6 3D 23.7 38.5 9.2 15.0 7.1 11.6 3E 30.3 39.8 11.9 15.7 9.1 12.0 Although earthquake motions can be expected to last for a duration of minutes, the strong motion portion of a shock, which is of concern for seismically designed structures, is generally not longer than a few seconds. Of motions based on 60 earthquakes ranging in magnitude from 5.0 to 8.0, the duration of the strong motion portion of these earthquakes ranges from about 1.5 seconds for magnitude 5.0 to about 15 seconds for magnitude 8.0. The average duration of the strong motion portion, however, is only about 2.2 seconds. To be somewhat conservative, it will be assumed that the duration of the strong motion portion will be 5 seconds for the OBE and 20 seconds for the SSE. When compared to the duration of the strong motion records of such earthquakes as the N-S component of the 1940 El Centro and the N 69 W component of the 1952 Taft, this assumed duration of strong motion earthquake is conservative. The high density fuel storage racks are designed for five OBE's and one SSE.
| |
| Number of stress cycles = Number of earthquakes x time in second for the strong motion earthquake x Fundamental mode in Hz.
| |
| Number of stress cycles during OBE = 5 x 5 x 20 = 500 cycles Number of stress cycles during SSE = 1 x 20 x 20 = 400 cycles.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 267
| |
| | |
| Storage Rack Fatigue Analysis - Per Subsection NF of the ASME Code, no peak stress. or fatigue evaluation is required for Class 3 supports. However, as a conservative approach, the peak stress range, fatigue evaluation, and cumulative damage are calculated per Subsection NB-3222.4 of the Code.
| |
| The range of primary plus secondary stresses is limited to the lower of 2Sy or Su, per ASME Code Section III, Table NF-3522(b)-1, Note 5. The material properties of the rack material are tabulated below at design temperature. The design temperature of the storage rack is 150'F. The material properties given in the ASME Code Section III, Appendix I, are interpolated to get properties at 150'F.
| |
| Sy SU E ksi ksi lb/in~
| |
| ASTM A-240 Type 304L 23.15 63.1 27.9 x ASTM A-479 Type 304L 23.15 68.1 x 10'7.9 10'he allowable range of primary plus secondary stress (lower of 2Sy or Su at design temperature) is 46.3 ksi.
| |
| Alternating stress Sa = ~/i (Stress Range)
| |
| :. Sa=/ix46.3 =23.15ksi The storage rack fatigue analysis is performed per ASME Code Section III, Subsection NB-3222.4. First, the effect of elastic modulus (E) is considered since the E for the fuel storage racks is different from the ASME Code Section III, Figures I-9.2.1, and I-9.2.2. The effect of elastic modulus is considered by multiplying Sa by the ratio of the modulus of elasticity given on the design fatigue curve to the value of the modulus of elasticity of the fuel storage racks.
| |
| Sa = 23.15 x (28.3 /27.9)
| |
| Sa = 23.48 ksi In order to ensure that the fatigue analysis is conservative, a stress concentration factor of 4 is applied to Sa.
| |
| Therefore:
| |
| Sa = 4(23.48 ksi) = 93.92 ksi Figure I-9.2.1 of the ASME Code Section III (Reference 3.19) is used to calculate the allowable number of cycles at the given alternating stress. The number of allowable cycle at 93.92 ksi alternating stress is 2000.
| |
| Cumulative usage factor U = nl/N1+ n2/N2 U = (500/2000) + (400/2000)
| |
| U = 0.25 + 0.20 U = 0.45 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 268
| |
| | |
| where U = Cumulative usage factor nl = Number of OBE stress cycles Nl = Allowable cycles at OBE Sa n2 = Number of SSE stress cycles N2 = Allowable cycles at SSE Sa The cumulative usage factor for the spent fuel storage racks is 0.45 which is less than the limit of 1.0, so the racks meet the requirements of the ASME Code Section III, Subsection NB-3222.4.
| |
| Pool Liner Fatigue Analysis - The pool liner fatigue analysis is performed per Part 5, Appendix K of the AISC Code - Ninth Edition. The allowable tensile stress for the liner is 0.6Fy (Part 5, Chapter D-1 of the AISC Code). The tensile property for the liner at 150' is:
| |
| ASTM A-240 Type 304 Stainless steel Fy = 27.5 ksi (Appendix I, ASME Section III)
| |
| :. Allowable tensile stress is = 0.6Fy = 0.6 x 27.5 = 16.5 ksi Stress range = 2 x 16.5 = 33 ksi The total number of OBE+ SSE stress cycle is 900. These stress cycles are lower than 20,000.
| |
| ¹ Therefore, Load Condition 1 of the Table A-K4.1 (AISC Code) will be applicable to the pool liner. For the pool liner welded connections, the Stress Category B of the Table A-K4.2 (AISC Code) will be applicable. For Loading Condition ¹1 and Stress Category B, the allowable stress range is 49 ksi for fatigue strength, per Table A-K4.3 of the AISC Code. Since the pool liner stress range is 33 ksi, the pool liner meets the fatigue requirements of the AISC Code.
| |
| Conclusion - Rochester Gas &, Electric's R.'E. Ginna Unit 1 high density spent fuel storage racks meet the fatigue requirements of the ASME Code Section III, Subsection NB-3222.4, and the pool liner meets the fatigue requirements of the AISC Code, Section 5, Appendix K. All of these hardware have more than adequate fatigue life.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.12 Rack Base Plate Evaluation Rack ¹8 (2B), which is a 9xl 1 rack, was chosen for the thermal stress calculations since it has the largest plan projection (footprint). As a consequence, this will produce the largest thermal stresses due to the differential thermal growth during the faulted thermal accident, Ta.
| |
| The maximum rack loads generated during a seismic event (SSE) were applied to the ANSYS 3D single rack plate model. The fuel load consisted of consolidated fuel canisters (all cells loaded),
| |
| with the coefficient of friction equal to 0.8. This set of conditions produced the maximum loads in the rack structure, and was used to envelope the maximum base plate stresses for all the new racks. Additional conservatism was introduced into the analysis by constraining all the rack legs.
| |
| The loads obtained from the rack full pool seismic analysis were taken as the maximum values for each force and moment component (which generally do not achieve their maximums at the same time instant). The use of the individual maximum values assures a conservative combination of rack loads.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 269
| |
| | |
| The highest stresses in the base plate occur in the vicinity of the supports. The highest loaded legs are the corner legs, which are subjected to compression due to the vertical load (weight) and also due to the maximum bending about the two horizontal axes.
| |
| The thermally induced stresses (section 3.5.3.1. 10) further increase base plate corner stresses. The base plate membrane stress is shown in Figure 3.5-73, and Figure 3.5-74 shows the corresponding membrane plus bending stress.
| |
| The analysis results for the base plate are summarized in the table below:
| |
| ::>>j~';'i::Lo'a'd':Coiiibi'nation $ ,':,,:;>> IMax.",Stress,':[p'si]P,,:i":,,.''","'';,:;,,li>~~!': 'Allo'wable': Stres's', pepsi],''i:;.::
| |
| membrane: 767* membrane: 15,700 D+L+E+To (Level A) memb+ bend: 4,286* memb+bend: 23,550 range of m+b: 10,227 range of m+b: 46,300 membrane: 767* membrane: 20.881 D+L+E+Ta (Level B) memb+b end: 4,286~ memb+bend: 31,322 range of m+b: 5,842 range of m+b: 44,080 membrane: 767 membrane: 26,448 D+L+E'+Ta (Level D) memb+ bend: 4,286 memb+bend: 39,672 range of m+b: 5,842 range of m+b: 44,080
| |
| (*) Seismic stresses for Level D are reported since they envelop seismic OBE stresses 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 270
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-73 Base Plate Membrane Stress Contours ANSYS 52 I
| |
| JAN 1441 2200.'ll I PLOT NO. I I NODAL SOLUTION I 0'TEP<<1 l-- SOS ~ I TIME<< I I SIIT (AVO)
| |
| MX)DLE I
| |
| DMX ~ .015011 SLIN 054.044 SMX <<IIISSS I A ~ IISIT I 0 ~ 155.045 O 0211.14 ~
| |
| D 0242AIS E <<541.14 I F QIIIAII 0 <<ITISIT H ~ ISISII I 0405445
| |
| )
| |
| I I
| |
| I I
| |
| RO4E Rsct (I Ixt) Isss PNto siss<<<<<<
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 271
| |
| | |
| Figure 3.5-74 Base Plate Memb. + Bend. Stress Contours ANSYS $ 2 r-~
| |
| I JAN $ 1 ~ IT 254040 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLVT)ON STES' l--
| |
| 1 SDS ~ 1 TSSE 1 SINT )AYO)
| |
| TOP DNX AN 5011 SNN s50$ 25 SNX s$ 512 SllXSW25$
| |
| A 2)SSI 4 s002$
| |
| D 1050 I D IIII I E 1I2I P 2250 f- 0 s2002 N 2000 1
| |
| I s$ $ 10 i
| |
| I-I I
| |
| I I
| |
| i ROSE R ssI (1 15$ ) Is ss Ils V sIsss 05 3.5.3.1.13 Sloshing This section demonstrates compliance of Rochester Gas & Electric's Ginna spent fuel storage racks with Standard Review Plan - NUREG-0800, Section 3.8.4, Appendix D, Subsection (5), 'sloshing water'equirements. The standard stipulates that the spent fuel assemblies should be in a safe configuration through earthquake including its sloshing effects. Both seismic OBE and SSE conditions are evaluated for the sloshing effects.
| |
| Acceptance Criteria:
| |
| The safe configuration of the spent fuel assemblies is validated by verifying:
| |
| a) Change in hydrostatic pressure due to sloshing - impulsive force is negligible.
| |
| b) Height of sloshing waves is small such that the spent fuel racks will remain submerged in spent fuel water at all times.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 272
| |
| | |
| Sloshing Analysis Nomenclature A, Maximum displacement of W, d Maximum water-surface displacement EBP Excluding Bottom Pressure IBP Including Bottom Pressure g Acceleration of gravity h Height of water surface above the bottom of pool hh, Vertical distance from the pool bottom to W, and W, respectively One half length of rectangular pool wall M Bending moment or overturning moment on horizontal section of pool at the bottom P P~ Impulsive and convective forces, respectively T Period of vibration 6 Maximum horizontal acceleration of the ground during an earthquake W Weight of fluid in a pool W, Equivalent weight of fluid to produce the impulsive force P, on the pool wall W, Equivalent oscillating weight to produce the convective force P, on pool wall OAngular amplitude of free oscillations at the water surface p Mass density of fluid Circular &equency of free vibration for the n~ mode Sloshing:
| |
| The method of calculating seismically induced fluid pressure and maximum wave motion has been developed by Housner (TID-7024, Reference 3.27). The method applies to a flat bottomed, vertically oriented tank of uniform rectangular section.
| |
| When a tank containing fluid of weight W is accelerated in horizontal direction, a certain portion of the fluid acts as ifit were a solid mass of weight W, in rigid contact with walls and remainder weight W, willoscillate. Assuming the tank moves as a rigid body, bottom and walls willundergo the same acceleration. The acceleration induces oscillations of the fluid, contributing additional dynamic pressure on the walls and bottom. The maximum amplitude, Aofthe horizontal excursion of the mass determines the vertical displacement, pressure and the slosh height are calculated.
| |
| d, of the water surface, slosh height. Both impulsive 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 273
| |
| | |
| Impulsive Pressure:
| |
| pWater Surface 276'1.75" Concrete E1 236'"
| |
| 2L = 457.5 in E-W
| |
| ( 2L = 266.5 N-S) using equation F.47 (Reference 3.27)
| |
| P=p 0 h 1
| |
| ( ) P3 tanh(+3 )
| |
| h 2 h h Where: p = 62.4 lb/ft~ density of water 6 = horizontal acceleration (zero period acceleration) 0.2g for horizontal SSE h = 276'1 3/4" - (236'" + linear thickness)
| |
| Neglecting liner thickness of 1/4" h= 40.33 6 2L = East West length of pool = 457.50" or 38.125 ft.
| |
| L= 19.1 ft 19 1 0 47 h 40.33 Impulsive Pressure at y = h P= 62. 4 x 0. 2g x 40. 33 1- 1 f3 tanh (Q3 19.1
| |
| )
| |
| g 2 40.33 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 274
| |
| | |
| = 435.9 x tanh (0.8203)
| |
| = 435.9 x (0.6752)
| |
| = 294.3 Ib/fP or 2 psi The maximum pressure on the wall is 2 psi. This reduces to zero at water surface. This is acceptable considering hydrostatic pressure due to height of water 40.33 ft under normal condition.
| |
| MAXIMUMWATER-SURFACE DISPLACEMENT - d UNDER OBE:
| |
| Fort/h=0.474
| |
| = 0.527 tanh (1.58 h
| |
| ) Equation 6.5 of Reference (3.27)
| |
| Ã h
| |
| = 0 '27 x 0.474 x tanh ( 1.58 )
| |
| 0.474
| |
| = 0.249 EBP - Excluding bottom Pressure on bottom h -1 cosh (1. 58 )
| |
| hq
| |
| =1 h h h
| |
| : 1. 58 sinh (1. 58 )
| |
| cosh( 1.58
| |
| ' - 1 0.474 1.58 x sinh(. 1.58
| |
| )
| |
| 0.474 0.474
| |
| = 0.72 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 275
| |
| | |
| P t
| |
| | |
| Using Equation 6.8 (Reference 3.27) 1 58gh(1 58jl 1.58 x 32.2 t h 1 58 19.1 19.1
| |
| = 2.6569
| |
| :.e=~2. 6569 = 1. 63 cad/eec 2rr 2rr 3.85 T seconds m 1.63 or 5 1.' 63 0.26 Hz 2rr 2 xrr From OBE horizontal response spectra at 0.25 Hz at 1/2% damping, the spectra acceleration is 0.0588 g's (derived &om 0.08 g's Regulatory Guide 1.60, horizontal spectra, References 3.10, and 3.22).,
| |
| spectra accln 0. 0588 x 32. 2 0 7]
| |
| 2.6569 Using Equation 6.9 of Reference 3.27 e= 1.58 tanh(1.58 A~
| |
| e
| |
| )
| |
| = 1.58 x 0.71 tanh (1.58 x 40.33 '
| |
| 19.1 19.1
| |
| = 0.05858 radian 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 276
| |
| | |
| Using Equation 6.11 of Reference 3.27:
| |
| 0.527 l coth (1.58 )
| |
| 1((8(X 0.527 x19.1 x cath (1.58 x 40.33 (
| |
| 19.1 32.2 2.6569 x 0 '5858 x 19.1
| |
| = 1.026 Zt Due to sloshing during OBE the water surface willrise and lower by 1.026 feet. The distance from pool water level to top of fuel storage racks is approximately 25 feet. This depth is significantly higher than the sloshing wave (d g height. Therefore, spent fuel willremain submerged in the spent fuel pool water throughout the OBE event.
| |
| MAXIMUMWATER SURFACE DISPLACEMENT - d UNDER SSE:
| |
| The frequency of sloshing is the same as that of OBE, i.e., 0.26 Hz. From SSE horizontal response spectra at 0.25 Hz at 1/2% damping, the spectra acceleration is 0.1471 g's (derived from 0.2 g's Regulatory Guide 1.60, horizontal spectra, References 3.11, and 3.22).
| |
| >Pectra 0.1471 x 32.2 Q) 2 a(=(=2n 2.6569 1 7828 ft Using Equation 6.9 of Reference 3.27 e= 1.58 tanh(1.58 A~
| |
| )
| |
| = 1.58 x 1.7828 'anh 19.1 (1.58 x 40.' 33
| |
| : 19. 1
| |
| = 0. 1471 radian 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 277
| |
| | |
| Using Equation 6.11 of Reference 3.27:
| |
| : 0. 527 $ coth (1. 58 )
| |
| max
| |
| : 0. 527 x19. 1 x coth (1. 58 x 40.33 '
| |
| 19.1 32.2 2.6569 x 0.1471 x 19.1
| |
| = 3.054 St During SSE event the water surface willrise and lower by 3.054 ft. The distance from pool water level to top of fuel storage racks is approximately 25 feet. This depth is significantly higher than the sloshing wave (d g height. Therefore, spent fuel will remain submerged in the spent fuel pool water throughout the SSE event.
| |
| Sloshing Summary:
| |
| During earthquake the pool water will oscillate with frequency of 0.26 Hz (or with a period of 3.85 seconds). During OBE the water surface will rise 1.026 ft. above it's undisturbed level. During postulated OBE event the water will not spill above pool wall. During SSE the water surface will rise and fall 3.054 ft from it's undisturbed level. During both OBE and SSE events, spent fuel will remain submerged in the spent fuel pool water.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 278
| |
| | |
| ll f . %l 'll A ~
| |
| 3.5.3.1.14 Summary of Gap Closure from Five (5) OBE's Plus One (1) SSE
| |
| ~
| |
| The cumulative movement of the racks within the pool due to a combination of seismic events is addressed in this section. A total of five (5) OBE events and one (1) SSE event is accounted for.
| |
| The relative closure between the racks is tabulated for both East-West and North-South directions.
| |
| The maximum rack displacements occur with the lowest coefficient of friction equal to 0.2, and the racks completely loaded with unconsolidated fuel. The low hydrodynamic coupling values for unconsolidated fuel (versus higher hydrodynamic coupling for the consolidated fuel) combined with the maximum fuel load per rack (full racks) cause the maximum displacements to occur. Therefore, the total closure calculated from this section is taken from loading cases with racks completely .
| |
| loaded with unconsolidated fuel and coefficients of &iction equal to 0.2.
| |
| The final position of the racks (both translations and rotations) for the OBE events is combined using the SRSS method. The time-history factor for the OBE events (1.12) is then multiplied by the SRSS value for the 5 OBEs. This process is applied to both displacements and rotations.
| |
| The maximum motions during the entire SSE event (displacements at the top of the racks) were then used for SSE. The time-history factor of 1.20 was used for the SSE events.
| |
| For conservatism, all OBE final relative displacements were taken as "closure", even though many were actually showing an "opening" between the two bodies. Further, to add to the overall conservatism, the relative lateral displacements due to rack rotations were additive for each rack rotation, regardless as to the actual rotations between the two bodies. For example, for small angles of rotation, with two racks rotating the same direction for similar angles, the relative gap between two corners would remain the same. Also the effects of higher hydrodynamic coupling between two bodies that have a smaller gap between them during successive seismic events are not accounted for.
| |
| The nomenclature for the following tables are as follows: WW = West Wall, NW = North Wall, EW
| |
| = East Wall and SW = South Wall.
| |
| In conclusion, using a conservative approach, none of the racks impact with any other rack or with the walls during the cumulative effects of 5 OBE's and 1 SSE.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 279
| |
| | |
| Maximum Gap Closure for 5 OBE's + 1 SSE (With Perimeter Racks)
| |
| Horizontal East-West Relative Displacements (in)
| |
| Table 3.5-133 Relative Disp. Due to East-West Translation 1st 2nd 1.12 X 1.2 X Total Rack Rack 1 OBE 5 OBE's 5 OBE's 1 SSE 1 SSE Disp.
| |
| WW 1 0.0161 0 '359 0.0402 0.1680 0.2016 0.2418 WW 2 0.0057 0.0127 0.0142 0.1903 0.2284 0.2426 1 3 0.0063 0 '141 0.0158 0.0731 0.0877 0.1035 2 4 0 '079 0.0177 0.0198 0.0924 0.1109 0.1308 3 5 0.0122 0.0273 0.0306 0.0592 0.0711 0.1017 4 6 0.0104 0.0233 0.0261 0.0619 0.0743 0.1004 5 7 0.0239 0.0534 0.0598 0.1595 0.1914 0.2512 5 8 0.0111 0.0248 0.0278 0.2060 0 '472 0.2750 6 8 0.0167 0.0374 0.0419 0.1844 0.2213 0 '632 6 9 0.0216 0.0484 0.0542 0.2151 0.2581 0.3123 6 10 0.0153 0.0343 0.0384 0.1230 0.1476 0.1860 8 11 0 '419 0.0937 0.1049 0.2750 0.3300 0.4349 9 12 0.0009 0.0020 0.0022 0.3473 0.4168 0.4190 10 13, 0.0988 0.2209 0.2474 0.1738 0.2086 0.4560 11 EW 0.0333 0.0746 0.0836 0.2076 0.2491 0.3327 12 EW 0.0126 0.0282 0.0316 0.1312 0.1574 0.1890 13 EW 0.1060 0.2370 0.2654 0.1991 0.2389 0.5044 Table 3.5-134 Relative East-West Disp. Due to Rotation 1st 2nd 1.12 X 1.2 X Total Rack Rack 1 OBE 5 OBE's 5 OBE's 1 SSE 1 SSE Disp.
| |
| WW 1 0.0089 0.0199 0.0223 0.0274 0.0329 0.0552 WW 2 0.0144 0.0322 0.0361 0 '308 0.0370 0 '730 1 3 0.0123 0.0275 0.0308 0.0469 0.0563 0.0871 2 4 0.0148 0.0331 0.0371 0.0357 0.0428 0.0799 3 5 0.0055 0.0123 0.0138 0.0485 0.0582 0.0720 4 6 0.0020 0.0045 0.0050 0.0275 0.0330 0.0380 5 7 0.0028 0.0063 0.0070 0.0423 0.0508 0.0578 5 8 0.0035 0.0078 0.0088 0.0510 0.0612 0.0700 6 8 0.0030 0.0067 0.0075 0.0447 0.0536 0 '612 6 9 0.0123 0.0275 0.0308 0.0447 0.0536 0.0844 6 10 0.0032 0.0072 0.0080 0.0480 0.0576 0.0656 8 11 0.0139 0.0311 0.0348 0.0989 0.1187 0.1535 9 12 0.0279 0.0624 0.0699 0.0796 0.0955 0.1654 10 13 0.0050 0.0112 0.0125 0.0844 0.1013 0.1138 11 EW 0.0124 0.0277 0.0311 0.0769 0.0923 0.1233 12 EW 0.0172 0.0385 0.0431 0 '576 0.0691 0.1122 13 EW 0.0033 0.0074 0.0083 0.0591 0.0709 0.0792 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 280
| |
| | |
| >>0 ~
| |
| 'l
| |
| | |
| Maximum Gap Closure for 5 OBE's + 1 SSE (With Perimeter Racks)
| |
| Horizontal North-South Relative Displacements (in)
| |
| Table 3.5-135 Relative Disp. Due to North-South Translation 1st 2 Ild 1.12 X 1.2 X Total Rack Rack 1 OBE 5 OBE's 5 OBE's 1 SSE 1 SSE Disp.
| |
| SW 1 0.0118 0.0359 0.0402 0.2010 0.2412 0.2814 1 2 0.0514 0.0127 0.0142 0.0966 0.1159 0.1301 2 NW 0.0396 0.0141 0.0158 0.2953 0.3544 0.3702 SW 3 0.0168 0.0177 0.0198 0.1514 0.1817 0.2015 3 4 0.0028 0.0273 0.0306 0.0982 0.1178 0.1484 4 NW 0.0141 0.0233 0.0261 0.1699 0.2039 0.2300 SW 5 0.0001 0.0534 0.0598 0.1907 0.2288 0.2886 5 6 0.0227 0.0248 0.0278 0.0799 0.0959 0.1237 6 NW 0.0226 0.0374 0 '419 0.1932 0.2318 0.2737 SW 7 0.0002 0.0484 0.0542 0.3354 ,0.4025 0.4567 7 8 0.0197 0.0343 0.0384 0 '716 0.0860 0.1244 8 9 0.0342 0.0937 0.1049 0.0994 0 '192 0 '242 9 10 0.0078 0.0020 0.0022 0.0536 0.0643 0.0665 10 0.0069 0.2209 0.2474 '410 0.1692 0.4166 SW ll NW 0.0333 0.0395 0.0746 0.0282 0.0836 0.0316 0
| |
| 0.3205 0.3846 0.4682 11 12 0.0429 0.0515 0.0831 12 13 0.0133 0.2370 0.2654 0.0969 0.1163 0.3817 13 NW 0.0070 0.2370 0.2654 0.1313 0.1576 0.4230 Table 3.5-136 Relative North-South Disp. Due to Rotation 1st 2 Ild 1.12 X 1.2 X Total Rack Rack 1 OBE 5 OBE's 5 OBE's 1 SSE 1 SSE Disp.
| |
| SW 1 0.0056 0.0125 0.0140 0.0173 0.0208 0.0348 1 2 0.0147 0.0329 0.0368 0.0368 0.0442 0 0810
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 NW 0.0091 0 '203 0.0228 0.0195 0.0234 0.0462 SW 3 0.0022 0.0049 0.0055 0.0123 0 '148 0.0203 3 4 0.0025 0.0056 0.0063 0.0154 0.0185 0.0247 NW 0 '003 0.0007 0.0008 0.0031 0.0037 0.0045 SW 5 0.0013 0.0029 0.0033 0.0183 0.0220 0.0252 5 6 0.0022 0.0049 0.0055 0 '326 0.0391 0 '446 6 NW 0.0010 0.0022 0.0025 0.0143 0.0172 0.0197 SW 7 0.0011 0.0025 0 '028 0.0182 0.0218 0.0246 7 8 0.0029 0.0065 0.0073 0.0450 0.0540 0.0613 8 9 0.0233 0.0521 0.0584 0.0708 0.0850 0.1433 9 10 0.0239 0.0534 0.0599 0.0801 0.0961 0.1560 10 NW 0.0024 0.0054 0.0060 0.0361 0.0433 0.0493 SW 11 0.0177 0.0396 0.0443 0.1099 0.1319 0 '762 11 12 0.0521 0.1165 0.1305 0.2251 0.2701 0.4006 12 13 0.0391 0.0874 0 '979 0.1996 0.2395 0.3374 13 NW 0.0048 0.0107 0.0120 0.0844 0.1013 0.1133 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 281
| |
| | |
| Maximum Gap Closure for 5 OBE's + 1 SSE (With Perimeter Racks)
| |
| Table 3.5-137 Summary of East-West Relative Disp.
| |
| Summary of Total North-South Gap Closure (Translation and Rotation)
| |
| Total Total Total Initial Final Gap Trans. Rot. Closure Gap Gap Status 1st 2nd Closure Closure Between Between Between Rack Rack Racks Racks WW 1 0.2418 0.0552 0.2970 10.500 10.203 Open WW 2 0.2426 0.0730 0.3156 9.750 9.434 Open 1 3 0.1035 0.0871 0.1906 1.750 1.559 Open 2 4 0.1308 0.0799 0.2107 1.250 1.039 Open 3 5 0.1017 0.0720 0.1736 0.750 0.576 Open 4 6 0.1004 0.0380 0.1384 0.630 0.492 Open 5 7 0.2512 0.0578 0.3090 0.550 0.241 Open 5 8 0.2750 0.0700 0.3449 0.550 0.205 Open 6 8 0 '632 0.0612 0.3243 0.550 0.226 Open 6 9 0.3123 0.0844 0.3968 3.380 2.983 Open 6 10 0.1860 0.0656 0.2516 3.380 3.128 Open 8 11 0.4349 0.1535 0.5884 0.790 0.202 Open 9 12 0.4190 0.1654 0.5844 0.790 0.206 Open 10 13 0.4560 0.1138 0.5698 0.790 0.220 Open 11 EW 0.3327 0.1233 0.4560 3.270 2.814 Open 12 EW 0 '890 0.1122 0 '012 3.270 2.969 Open 13 EW 0.5044 0.0792 0.5835 3.270 2.686 Open Table 3.5-138 Summary of North-South Relative Disp.
| |
| Total Total "
| |
| Total Initial Final Gap Trans. Rot. Closure Gap Gap Status 1st 2nd Closure Closure Between Between Between Rack Rack Racks Racks SW 1 0.2814 0.0348 0.3162 5.250 4.934 Open 1 2 0.1301 0.0810 0.2111 0.500 0.289 Open 2 NW 0.3702 0.0462 0.4163 5.750 5.334 Open SW 3 0.2015 0 '203 0.2218 6.000 5.778 Open 3 4 0.1484 0.0247 0.1732 0.750 0.577 Open 4 NW 0.2300 0.0045 0.2344 4.750 4.516 Open SW 5 0.2886 0.0252 0 '139 7.500 7.186 Open 5 6 0.1237 0.0446 0.1683 0.750 0.582 Open 6 NW 0.2737 0.0197 0.2934 3.250 2.957 Open SW 7 0.4567 0.0246 0.4813 7.050 6.569 Open 7 8 0.1244 0.0613 0.1856 0.790 0.604 Open 8 9 0.2242 0.1433 0.3675 0.790 0.422 Open 9 10 0.0665 0.1560 0.2225 0.790 0.568 Open 10 NW 0.4166 0.0493 0.4659 1.720 1.254 Open SW 11 0.4682 0.1762 0.6444 87.740 87.096 Open 11 12 0.0831 0.4006 0 '837 0.790 0.306 Open 12 13 0.3817 0.3374 0.7192 0.790 0.071 Open 13 NW 0.4230 0.1133 0.5363 1.720 1.184 Open 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 282
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.1.15 Borated Stainless Steel Functionality Borated stainless steel (BSS) is utilized in the ATEA spent fuel pool rack design as the neutron absorber. BSS is an excellent material for use in spent fuel pools and has been used in all of ATEA's racks. While it is an effective neutron poison, it also exhibits high corrosion resistance in the borated water environment of the spent fuel pool. It also exhibits good structural properties in strength and ductility. The ATEA-spent fuel rack designs utilize BSS as a neutron absorber only, and is functionally designed as a non-structural component. The BSS plates are designed to transmit only compressive loads within the structural framework of the racks. No tension or bending loads are transmitted given the inherent cell-to-cell gaps, the specific bearing load transmission features between the BSS and adjacent structural cells, the compliance of the interlocking features of the BSS plates, and the compliance of the non-fixity free-standing conditions of the BSS cell itself.
| |
| Interlocking fingers (straight mortises and tenons) machined along the edges of the BSS plates serve a dual purpose. Four individual BSS'plates are assembled to form a square tube cell without the use of mechanical (i.e., screws or pins) or fusion (i.e., weld or adhesive) joining processes. The BSS cell slides inside the rack frame cell as an interlocked unit during fabrication. The interlocking fingers are designed such that sufficient clearances are provided to permit the joint to rotate and slip. The joint mitigates fuel assembly impact loading within the BSS cell while maintaining proper finger overlap and sufficient plate engagement. The design tolerances are such that a minimum engagement of one-half of a plate thickness is ensured. While the design provides compliance for internal loads, i.e., fuel assembly impact loads, the mortise and tenon joint maintains the square cell geometry when transmitting loads between the structural cells.
| |
| The transmission of lateral loads within the ATEA type 2A-B rack structural frame is achieved through a series of bearing retainer plates and corner tabs welded to the stainless steel cells. The retainer plates also serve to axially constrain the BSS cell within its designated rack cell. Lateral gaps between the BSS and stainless steel integral cell in addition to the non-fixity features of the BSS cell itself serve to mitigate bending loads in the BSS plates.
| |
| The transmission of lateral loads between the ATEA type 3A-E rack structural frame and the BSS cells is achieved through a series of stainless steel "bands" located at discrete axial locations along the length of the BSS cells. The band is assembled as two pieces fitting into mortice joints on the BSS plates and then welded to each other to form an integral band around the BSS cell. Given the
| |
| &eestanding boundary conditions of the BSS cell and lateral gaps between the bands and adjacent structural cells, rigid body motion is allowed with negligible bending moments produced in the BSS cell. Transmission of loads are entirely bearing in nature.
| |
| The BSS plates are sandwiched between the stainless steel structural cells for the ATEA type 4 racks with the transmission of loads being bearing in nature. Any moment loads due to type 1 rack impact would be in-plane and result in negligible stresses. Impact between the type 4 racks and the pool wall does not exist.
| |
| Results from the rack analyses show that subsequent rack frame loads and displacements are insufficient to load the BSS cell in bending or tension.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 283
| |
| | |
| Dynamic loadings were generated by computer models for the various rack designs. These models included the BSS plates and the various rack component masses. G-force loadings were generated at locations where the bearing retainer plates axially constrain the BSS plates within the type 2 stainless steel rack cell and also at the rack base plate seating surface for the type 3 racks. The retainer plate welds and rack base plate are designed to carry the full vertical dynamic loadings from the BSS plates/cells -to the stainless steel rack structure. Analyses contained in the Sections 3.5.3.1.2.5 and 3.5.3.1.12 demonstrate the integrity of the retainer plate weld tabs and baseplate respectively.
| |
| Lateral loads and subsequent moments and displacements were also generated for the rack cells.
| |
| Resulting displacements were small and within the available design gaps. In addition, the BSS plates offer'very little resistance due to its lack of restraint at the ends as the plates are only captured and not fixed (welded or pinned) to the rack structure. The in-plane bending (across the width of the plate) displacement due to its own mass is negligible, and bowing along the plate length is precluded by the interlocking fingers with adjacent plates.
| |
| Thermal Stresses in BSS When a freshly discharged fuel assembly is stored in a Borated Stainless Steel (BSS) cell, the BSS plate temperature increases. The temperature distribution is isotropic in each section, so that the BSS cell expands in an isotropic way (without stresses).
| |
| The amount of expansion, calculated in a very conservative way (assuming a saturated boiling temperature, 238.9'F, in the BSS cell and only 120'F in the SS cell outside) can be evaluated as follows:
| |
| Lateral Expansion:
| |
| = a(b,T)L Where a = 8.872E-6 in/in/'F at 238.9'F
| |
| = (8.872E-6)(238.9-120)(8.4) L,= 8.4 in. (BSS width)
| |
| = 0.009 in. < Existing Gap = 0.016 in.
| |
| Vertical Expansion:
| |
| = a(b,T)L, Where L2=145.7 in. (BSS height)
| |
| = (8.872E-6)(238.9-120)(145.7) = 0.154 in. < Existing Gap = 0.197 in.
| |
| Therefore, under no circumstances willthe BSS be constrained by the surrounding SS cell. Further, an additional gap exists between the notches in the BSS plates due to laser cutting during the manufacturing process.
| |
| Therefore, the BSS plates will adequately function as the neutron attenuator and willprovide a safe environment for storing spent fuel and fresh nuclear fuel assemblies.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.16 U.S. Tool dt Die Rack Structural Evaluation Racks 1 through 6 are resident racks and will be kept in the new pool configuration. Those racks are referred as Racks 1 through 6. Those racks have been licensed in the Rochester Gas & Electric's Ginna spent fuel pool, NRC SER dated November 14, 1984, Amendment 65 to License No. DPR-18.
| |
| Hereafter, this is referred as 1985 Licensing Basis.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 284
| |
| | |
| The gaps in the new configuration are designed such that new ATEA racks do not impact U.S. Tool and Die racks under normal and all seismic conditions. However, due to hydrodynamic coupling, there will be some load transfer between resident and new racks. To establish these loads, the new seismic analysis includes all racks in the pool, in the whole pool model. The new seismic loads are generated for both resident and new racks.
| |
| Tables 3.5-139 and -140 provide summary of seismic loads on U.S. Tool and Die racks. The loads are summarized from new analysis and also &om 1985 Licensing Basis. Review of these tables indicates that the new seismic loads on U.S. Tool and Die racks and rack support are lower than the original licensing basis. This is true for both OBE and SSE conditions. Therefore, the stresses in the U.S. Tool and Die racks will be lower than the 1985 Licensing Basis.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 285
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-139 Seismic Loads on Racks 1 through 6 - at the Base of Rack
| |
| ',5>..U;S 'Tool gr,';:Die Analysis:,":$
| |
| Ba'sis'.:-''$ );.': ''., :..'',l,.;:".'Witho'iit Perime'ter'acks.:
| |
| '~:.'::l:::;::;41985:L'Icensing
| |
| ..", "::.''.,!::.',:: ij::With':Pei'im'eter,'Racks',',''',::,':,,:
| |
| ::.;.:"::';.;::Sta'i'idard co'nfIgu'ration",".:.:;:~;:.:.':;:::;. ;'.::.:,:':i:::.:'.,:",.Exte'nded'Corifigur'atIon~j:.
| |
| ,,"'."lbs,'i:'':'!!,:'-;';,'.':,Ibs;:.:'::":;,';:;::.:i,'.;.I Operating Basis Earthquake Standard 156,200 170,000 411,133 43,971 70,896 230,700 39,998 70,429 253,875 Fuel Consolidated 153,000 160,200 451,146 48,436 103,952 443,316 Fuel Mixed Fuel 28,896 47,966 254,084 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Standard 164,300 231,500 475,723 88,832 126,000 328,920 91,248 122,074 332,543 Fuel Consolidated 184,700 239,300 565,564 85,776 176,640 558,600 80,999 163,138 555,543 Fuel Mixed Fuel 69,395 110,225 552,970 Notes:
| |
| : 1. Reported results with perimeter racks are ratioed from analysis results to reflect maximum 138 fuel assemblies in Racks 1 through 6.
| |
| : 2. Maximum loads among Racks 1 through 6 are reported.
| |
| : 3. Empty spaces in the above table means, the results from other case envelopes this loading configuration.
| |
| The X direction is East, the Y direction is North and the Z direction is vertical.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 286
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-140 Seismic Support Pad Load on Racks 1 through 6 Load on Each Pad i~j,.:,:'.:U-S';.;To'oi:::'4,:Di'e):,,:-,'"if' NewjAiialysis,,::.',.;'':~::-':,'::::''"..'i i;:,;::j.;,.":i'::'.>New',"An'aiysIs'-: '".,",.';.".';,',
| |
| ''-:=,",:: l',':;::.'::;:-'Aii'alysis.'::,':.'.","i'',:':!.:;:W."''i ~-',~jWithou't'-Periiii'eter',."-:':,":.:
| |
| ';,"'1985'.':L''iceiisin'g':Basjs",,"",'%"..5"
| |
| .":'i':,:::Exte'rided';Coiifigu'ratjo'n',:,:::;
| |
| ":S'tandard: Config'uiation'''': yY~ C,'' ''' ', ~'5 + ',
| |
| ':;:;;::Ver'tical)::",. '; 'Horig'oiital:::i::::,:Vertic'a1I:; ,'I","::,:-,:.V.er'tical>,''".;,;
| |
| 'C',::;::Horimn41::~::
| |
| .;:g.;:,,';,.',gglbs'.-"..''::,'!:.: "':
| |
| Operating Basis Earthquake Standard 115,432 205,567 24,584 122,976 22,818 114,145 Fuel Consolidated 110,762 225,573 23,873 169,285 Fuel Mixed Fuel 17,513 118,426 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Standard 141,939 237,862 87,636 193,440 78,324 172,761 Fuel Consolidated 151,144 282,782 103,596 250,680 76,601 246,162 Fuel Mixed Fuel 52,086 193,349 Notes:
| |
| : 1. Reported results with perimeter racks are ratioed from analysis results to reflect maximum 138 fuel assemblies in Racks 1 through 6.
| |
| Maximum loads among Racks 1 through 6 are reported.
| |
| Empty spaces in the above table means, the results from other case envelopes this loading configuration.
| |
| Summary The loads and stresses in the U.S. Tool and Die racks are lower than the 1985 Licensing Basis.
| |
| Therefore, the U.S. Tool and Die racks meets the structural acceptance criteria.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.17 Spent Fuel Pool and Liner Structural Evaluation This section demonstrates compliance of RGEcE Ginna Unit 1 spent fuel pool and pool liner structural integrity with the requirements of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan 3.8.4, Appendix D requirements. The spent fuel pool evaluation is based on a conservative interpretation of the American Concrete Institute*s Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures ACI 349-85 (Reference 3.20). The pool liner evaluation is based on a conservative interpretation of the American Institute of Steel Construction's Building Code AISC-9th Edition (Reference 3.21).
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 287
| |
| | |
| C The design of new high density storage racks is such that it preserves the original licensing basis (NRC SER dated November 14, 1984), here afler referred to as the 1985 licensing basis, for the spent fuel pool liner and pool concrete. The new ATEA storage racks are &ee standing racks, and they are supported on the pool floor only. The gaps between the rack and the pool are designed such that the new racks do not impose any additional loadings on the pool wall. These conditions are verified throughout the analysis. The new racks are high density storage racks and they will store more fuel.
| |
| The number of support legs are designed such that the new racks do not impose any higher loading to the pool liner or the pool concrete. This also verified during analysis. The support legs are positioned on the liner such that they are away from the liner weld seams.
| |
| The pool and the liner temperatures are kept the same as the original design basis. Therefore, there are no additional thermal loadings on the pool or the liner. The pool water level is kept the same as the original design basis. Therefore, there are no additional hydrostatic or hydrodynamic loads on the pool or the liner.
| |
| This design requires, only, verification of bearing loads on the liner and concrete.
| |
| Acceptance Criteria - Spent Fuel Pool Liner The spent fuel pool liner is designed to AISC Code. The storage rack support pads are designed such that they do not rest on liner weld seam. The support pads primarily induce bearing loads on the liner.
| |
| The redesign only changes floor bearing loads Bearing Allowable 0.9 Fv Per AISC Liner Fatigue Analysis per AISC, Appendix K Acceptance Criteria - Spent Fuel Pool Concrete The spent fuel pool concrete is designed per requirements ACI 349-85. The storage racks being &ee standing structure, primarily induces bearing load on concrete at support pad locations. The redesign only changes floor bearing loads.
| |
| Bearing Allowable $ (0.85 f,) Per ACI 349, Section 10.15
| |
| ~ Demonstrate that there are no rack-to-wall impacts Pool Liner Evaluation The pool liner bearing stress analysis is performed in Section 3.5.3.1.9.1.2. Table 3.5-131 presents the results of the stress analysis. The results indicate that there is a large margin against AISC Code allowable. Section 3.5.3.1.11 presents the result of the pool liner fatigue analysis. The results indicate that the pool liner meets the fatigue requirements of the AISC Code, Ninth Edition, Section 5, Appendix K, and the liner has adequate fatigue life.
| |
| Therefore, the structural integrity of the liner is maintained.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 288
| |
| | |
| Spent Fuel Pool Structural Evaluation This vertical reaction is transferred direct ly downward to the concrete through the liner plate. The maximum applied concrete bearing stresses for all load combinations is less than 3,570 psi. The maximum bearing stresses and the comparison of maximum bearing stresses to allowable are presented in Section 3 0.3.1.9.1.2, which indicates an adequate margin against the ACI 349-85 Code.
| |
| Therefore, the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool is maintained.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.18 Stuck Fuel Assembly - UpliftForce This section demonstrates compliance of Rochester Gas 4 Electric's Ginna spent fuel storage racks with Standard Review Plan - NUREG-0800, Section 3.8.4, Appendix D, 'upward force on the racks caused by postulated stuck fuel assembly'equirements. The standard for the stuck fuel assembly condition stipulates that the spent fuel racks so designed and constructed such that, ifmaximum uplift force of the spent fuel crane is applied, the stresses in the rack should be within service Level B stress of ASME Section III, Subsection NF (Reference 3.19).
| |
| Two postulated events are considered, namely:
| |
| P Case l: Axial Load of P Case 2: Load P 45 Degrees From Vertical Acceptance Criteria:
| |
| The Standard Review Plan 3.8.4, Appendix D (Reference 3.4) provides the load combination to be considered and acceptable stress limits for this load combination. The load combination per SRP 3.8.4 is:
| |
| D+ L+ To+Pf Where: D is dead weight load, these are negligible at the top of rack.
| |
| L is live load, these are zero since there is no live load To is normal condition thermal load and is negligible at the top of tube Pf is upward force on the racks caused by postulated stuck fuel assembly.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 289
| |
| | |
| The allowable stress limits are the Level B stress limits per ASME Section III, Subsection NF for Class 3 component supports (Reference 3.19). These limits per NF-3251 and Table NF-3552(b)-1 are:
| |
| Primary membrane stress 1.33 S Primary membrane plus bending stress 1.995 S The structural tubes are fabricated from ASTM A240 Type 304L material. The S value at 150' from ASME Section III, Appendix I, Table I-7.2 is 15.7 ksi (Reference 3.19). Therefore, the allowable stress for this condition are:
| |
| Prim'ary membrane stress 1.33 x 15.7 = 20.881 ksi Primary membrane plus bending 1.995 x 15.7 = 31.322 ksi Stuck Fuel Assembly - Uplift Analysis There are two one-ton hoists on the fuel handling bridge. One extends on each side of the bridge (East and West). Only one hoist is used to remove a stuck fuel assembly.
| |
| Therefore, the total uplift force P = 2,000 lbs Fuel cell - Structural Tube Cross Section Properties:
| |
| Type 2 and Type 4 Racks 3 Racks Tube outside dimension (2 x c) 8.2992 in 8.496 in Tube Tube Tube inside dimension thickness - t cross section area - A in'ype 8.1417 in 0.0787 in 8.3386 in 0.0787 in 2.59 2.65 in~
| |
| Tube moment of inertia - I in'9.17 31.29 in4 For a given load, the stresses in the Type 2 (and Type 4) rack tubes will be highest, due to lower cross section properties. The following analysis is performed for Type 2 Rack structural tubes, and the results will be applicable to Type 3 and type 4 racks also.
| |
| Case 1: Vertical Uplift Force The vertical P = 2,000 lb force willproduce axial stress in the tube.
| |
| o~ = Load / Cross Section Area
| |
| =P/A
| |
| = 2,000 /2.59
| |
| = 772 psi < 20,881 psi (Primary membrane allowable 1.33S at 150')
| |
| Design Factor = [(Allowable - Actual) / Actual)] x 100
| |
| = [(20,881 - 772) /772] x 100 = 2,605% Large margin 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 290
| |
| | |
| 0 II
| |
| | |
| Case 2: UpliftForce 45 Degree From Vertical Axis Zh P
| |
| ~ oooooooooo ~
| |
| 9.88 in The P = 2,000 lb is applied 45 degrees from vertical.
| |
| Fx = 2,000 x Cos 45'= 1414.2 lb Fz = 2,000 x Sin 45' 1414.2 lb For bending moment, conservative moment up to the second tab is used, L = 9.88 inch Bending moment M = Fx ~ L
| |
| = 1414.2 x 9.88
| |
| = 13,972 in.lb 13 972 x 8. 2992 Hc 2 1,988 psi 0'elld
| |
| : 29. 17 Fz 1414.2 0
| |
| A 259 546 psi Membrane plus bending stress = 1,988 + 546
| |
| = 2,534 psi < 31,322 psi, 1.995S for 304L at 150' 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 291
| |
| | |
| Design Factor = [(Allowable - Actual) / Actual)] x 100
| |
| = [(31,322 - 2,534) /2,534] x 100 = 1,136%:. Large margin The weld stresses in the (BSS) upper retainers are calculated in Section 3.5.3.1.2. The stresses in all other, hardware e.g., tabs, base plate, tube to base plate weld, support legs, etc., are much lower than the fuel tube stresses calculated here.
| |
| | |
| == Conclusion:==
| |
| | |
| Rochester Gas Ec Electric's Ginna Unit 1 high density spent fuel storage racks meets the Level B stress limits ofASME Section III, Subsection NF, Class 3 component support requirements for stuck fuel assembly - maximum uplift force. The design has minimum margin of safety of 11.4 against allowable stress.
| |
| 3.5.3.1.19 Storage Rack LiftingAnalysis This section demonstrates compliance of existing Region 1 resident Wachter storage racks and new ATEA storage racks with NUREG-0612 (Reference 3.16), heavy load lifting requirements. The standard for NUREG-0612 heavy load lifting requirements stipulates that the structure to be lifted be designed and constructed such that it has a minimum specified safety factor to preclude drop of structure on any safety related system or equipments at nuclear power plants. Existing Region 1, three Wachter racks willbe removed from the spent fuel pool and seven new ATEA racks will be placed in the spent fuel pool.
| |
| Four liftingpoints, at the bottom plate, are provided on each rack. The lifting points are diagonally across from each other. Each lifting beam-cable can'be attached to diagonally opposite liftingpoint.
| |
| This facilitates either redundant or non-redundant lifting. The single failure proof, 30-ton auxiliary building crane willbe used to liftresident racks &om the spent fuel pool and to liftnew ATEA racks into the spent fuel pool.
| |
| Each rack weighs more than one fuel assembly plus the fuel handling tool. For this reason, the racks are classified as heavy load per NUREG-0612 criteria. Analysis is performed for each rack to ensure compliance with the lifting requirements of NUREG-0612. The lifting acceptance criteria is:
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 292
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| NUREG-0612 (Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants), Section 5.1.6 (Reference 3.16)
| |
| Safety Design Factor Criteria Redundant Lift Ultimate Non-redundant Lift 10 Ultimate The lifting stress analysis is performed for existing Region 1 Wachter storage racks and the new ATEA storage racks. The results are summarized in the following table:
| |
| ;:,::,.;:Mate'rials':;of:; iI~Mat'erial':Terisile I::
| |
| >Dry".;q%;eight",.:';;.','".;-','tress;,:'(,:,';
| |
| jConstructiaii':;:
| |
| bv4 x'.'c'~:,"~x;.~,~q';"k'
| |
| ', ';:;::,:I,,'.,g~',,'Stre'n'gth'';-:i:::,:: ':; ;>.:!,'',Safety',.",','.;'','':Su"/',:S
| |
| ':;':..
| |
| ,",:;.';''::.::<<".',at.::1'5,0,:;.;Fj:;, -'";:,,'>>';
| |
| Wachter Racks (These racks will be removed from the pool)
| |
| Type A3 Rack 304 SS 31,366 1,105 73,000 66 Type B Rack 304 SS 26,533 964 73,000 76 Type C Rack 304 SS 23,453 550 73,000 133 ATEA Racks (These racks will be installed in the pool)
| |
| Type 2B Rack* 304L SS 19,341 4,780 68,100 14
| |
| * Stresses in Rack 2B envelopes all other new ATEA racks. Stresses are developed using very conservative point load application.
| |
| An adequate margin exists for lifting existing Region 1 Wachter storage racks and new ATEA storage racks for either redundant or non-redundant lifting.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 293
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.2 Accident Conditions Mechanical Accident Evaluation This section demonstrates compliance with RG&E's Ginna spent fuel storage system with the Standard Review Plan - NUREG-0800, Appendix D, hypothetical accident condition requirements.
| |
| The standards for hypothetical accident conditions stipulate that the spent fuel storage system be so if designed and constructed such that, it is subject to the specified accident conditions, spent fuel assemblies should remain in safe configuration. This means, a) the off-site radiation dose should be within regulatory limit; and b) the fuel should remain subcritical.
| |
| The major hypothetical accident conditions evaluated are:
| |
| a) Fuel assembly drop during fuel handling in the spent fuel pool b) Spent fuel pool canal gate drop c) Spent fuel pool storage rack drop d) Tornado missile impact e) Spent fuel cask drop Several of these hypothetical conditions are eliminated by administrative procedure and/or by the use of a single-failure proof lifting system. Assessment of other conditions was performed by structural analysis. Well proven classical methods were used in the performance of these analyses.
| |
| Detailed information supporting these analyses are presented here.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.1 Methodology and Assumptions The basis for these analyses is an equating of the kinetic energy of the falling missile at impact with the elastic and plastic strain energy; i.e., an energy balance.
| |
| The evaluation of the various accidents was based upon the conservative assumption that under stress &om a uniform vertical load, the structural tubes willreach compressive yield using a reduced effective tube area. In order to judge the reasonableness of methodology, two results should be established; namely ductility factor and total deformation. The ductility factor is defined as the ratio of total strain to plastic strain. The total deformation is calculated directly &om the energy balance.
| |
| The elastic and plastic strains are based upon the deformations and the height of the target structure.
| |
| The greater the height of the target structure, the lesser will be the plastic strain. The target structure is selected as that portion of the racks above the borated stainless steel. Therefore, the calculated plastic strains and hence ductility factors are very conservative.
| |
| For drops onto the top surface of the racks, the checkerboard pattern means that the number of structural tubes is about one half of the number of storage cells. As the dropped object impacts the top of the racks, the affected tubes yield. However, the effect does not remain localized and will spread to the surrounding tubes through the strong interconnection provided by the welded connecting tabs. The assumption of the spreading of load only to immediately adjacent tubes is very conservative. Suf5cient interconnecting tabs are used to prevent general or local elastic buckling 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 294
| |
| | |
| of the tubes. This design provides for capacity to accommodate the various drop accidents. The extent of compressive yield was determined after completion of the various load drops. The stress values for buckling were determined and found to be sufficiently high.
| |
| The hydrodynamic effects have been neglected in the accident drop analyses to provide conservative results. In addition, no benefit is taken for deformation or energy absorption of the falling object.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.2 Acceptance Criteria The standards for the hypothetical accident conditions stipulate that the spent fuel storage system be designed and constructed such that, ifit is subject to the specified accident conditions, spent fuel assemblies should remain in safe configuration. This means, a) the off-site radiation dose should be within regulatory limit; and b) the fuel should remain subcritical. This has been verified by confirming function capability of spent fuel storage racks and the spent fuel pool as follows:
| |
| Straight Deep Drop The falling fuel assembly is stopp'ed prior to impinging upon the fuel pool floor liner.
| |
| Straight Deep Drop Onto Support Leg The load transmitted to the concrete will not result in crushing of concrete so as to prevent an uncontrollable leak in the pool.
| |
| Shallow Drops and Tornado Missile Impact The acceptance criteria for top of rack impacts are that the required inelastic deformation must be less than 10% of the length of the deforming structural mechanism and that the ductility factor remains less than 20 (per Table 4-4 of Reference 3.32). The ductility factor of 20 as a limit has been accepted by NRC Staff in review of Bechtel Topical Report, BC-TOP-9A, Revision 2, September 1974. Significant distortion of the cells will be limited to the footprint of impact and the adjacent fuel cells.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.3 Fuel Assembly Drop Analysis For hypothetical fuel assembly drops, four cases were examined:
| |
| a) Straight deep drop through cell.
| |
| b) Same as above, except a support leg is present at the base of the cell.
| |
| c) Shallow drop in which a dropped assembly strikes the top of a rack and falls flat on top of the rack.
| |
| d) Shallow drop in which a dropped assembly strikes the top of a rack in a vertical position.
| |
| Unconsolidated, fuel assembly drops were evaluated for the conditions outlined above. The canister containing consolidated fuel (weighing 2,638 lb) is considered heavy load per NUREG-0612 criteria and will be transported within spent fuel pool using a special tool suspended from a single failure proof auxiliary building crane. In a safety evaluation report dated December 31, 1984 the NRC Staff reviewed and approved modifications to the auxiliary building crane in order to meet the crane single-failure criteria ofNUREG-0612 and NUREG-0554. Therefore, handling of consolidated fuel will be performed in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-0612 with regard to limiting the chance of unacceptable heavy load drop (reference "NRC Staff Safety Evaluation Supporting 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 295
| |
| | |
| Amendment 12 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-18, RG&E Ginna, Docket 50-244," dated December 16, 1988).
| |
| Design Parameters for Fuel Assembly Drop Analyses:
| |
| The requirements of the accident are that a fuel assembly, along with the handling tool, drops from an operating height.
| |
| Weights Weight in air Weight in water Fuel Assembly with control components 1450 1307 Fuel handling tool ~24 Total 1774 1591 Maximum fuel assembly height above racks during fuel handling 12 inch Height of the fuel assembly 160 inch For deep drops, the drop height (160+ 12) 172 inch For shallow drops, the drop height 12 inch 304L Stainless Steel material properties at 150' (from ASME Section III, Appendix I)
| |
| Young's Modulus E = 27.9 x 10'b/in'ield strength S= 23,150 psi or 23.15 ksi Ultimate Strength S= 68,100 psi or 68.1 ksi 3.5.3.2.3.1 Fuel Assembly - Straight Deep Drop For this hypothetical accident drop of the fuel assembly deep drop two cases were analyzed. The first is the drop through the cell and impacting on the bottom plate remote from any support legs.
| |
| The second case is the deep drop inside through the fuel cell containing the support leg.
| |
| The following applies equally to Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4 racks for both of these drops.
| |
| Weight of fuel assembly+ weight of handling tool = 1,591 lbs or 1.591 kips Drop height 172 inch Bottom plate thickness 1.18 inch 3.5.3.2.3.1.1 Fuel Assembly Falls Through Cell to Base Plate Impact Energy: IE = Wx d IE = 1.591 x 172 = 273.652 in-kips 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 296
| |
| | |
| a h ~
| |
| Type 2 and Type 3 Racks The drop in the middle between support legs willproduce maximum deformation of the rack. In effect, a two-way slab develops. The approximate spacing of adjacent support legs is 4 x pitch of 9.2323 for type 3 racks (- 37 inches). The Type 3 rack is limiting, because the maximum spacing between the support legs is in the Type 3 Rack. The results presented below will envelope Type 2 racks.
| |
| 37 37'ield Lines TVP.
| |
| Support Leg During 172 inch fuel assembly drop impact, the welds connecting the tube to the base plate will fail.
| |
| The base plate willdetach from the cells in a 37" x 37" region. The 37" x 37" plate willhave support at the four legs and also will have a support from remaining plate. This means the edges willhave fixed support. For conservatism, the energy absorbed in breaking welds is neglected. All kinetic energy is absorbed in forming plastic hinges of the 1.18 inch thick bottom plate. The plastic hinge lines are shown in above figure.
| |
| For fully plastic hinge of a plate M,, = (o t'/4 MpL = 8.059 in-kips/in where MpL Plastic Moment t= 1.18 inches, thickness of the bottom plate o= 23.15 ksi at 150' for 304L Stainless Steel For a 37" x 37" two way flat plate.
| |
| P = 16 mp= 128 .9 kips Fully Flastic Load External energy = Internal energy Wd=P5 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 297
| |
| | |
| 5 = 273.652 / 128.9 = 2.12 inch < 13.7 inch:. O.K.
| |
| Where 13.7 is the distance between the bottom plate and the pool liner. Therefore, the deformed plate will not impact the pool liner.
| |
| b
| |
| = 8 where b = 37 inches 2
| |
| 8 = 0.1146 radians (t /2) 8 dcnd g b /4 Bending Strain = 0.007 6>,z where t = thickness of plate 1.18 inch L = b/4 there will be four plastic moments in length b, L = b/4 b = 37 inch spacing between support legs For 2.12 inch deformation of bottom plate, the falling object or the bottom plate will not impact the pool liner. ASTM Specification A 240-93a, Table 2 specifies a minimum elongation of 40% for Type 304L stainless steel material. The type 304L material is ductile and has adequate margin to accommodate 0.007 strain during fuel assembly drop. A major conservatism is to neglect the energy required to fail all the base welds in a 37" x 37" area of base plate.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 298
| |
| | |
| l ~ -, ~
| |
| Type 4 Racks A drop in the middle between support legs will produce maximum deformation of the rack. The spacing of adjacent support legs is 5 x pitch of 8.43 for Type 4 racks (L = 42.15 inches).
| |
| 0 M
| |
| L-M During 172 inch fuel assembly drop impact, the welds connecting the tube to the base plate willfail.
| |
| The base plate willdetach &om the cells. The 42.15" plate will have support at the two legs. This means the edges willhave fixed support. For conservatism, the energy absorbed in breaking welds is neglected. Allkinetic energy is absorbed in forming plastic hinges of the 1.18 inch thick bottom plate with 1.97 inch thick web. The base plate with 1.97 inch thick web forms a T cross section beam. The P lastichin g eline s ar e sh ownina bove figure.
| |
| For fully plastic hinge of the base plate (T Cross Section)
| |
| Mpi Z 0> where Z is the plastic section of modulus.
| |
| Z = 34.15 in'or fully plastic hinge of a plate M,= 34.15 o Mpi = ZG> = 790.5725 in-kips where o= 23.15 ksi at 150' for 304L Stainless Steel For a simply supported beam:
| |
| 5=ZM 8 =2M 8 6=(L/2) 8 PL= 8Mi 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 299
| |
| | |
| Loads required to form fully plastic hinge:
| |
| P =150.05 Kips Equating Internal Strain Energy to the Kinetic Energy External energy = Internal energy.
| |
| Wd=P5 273.652 = 150.05 5 5 = 273.652 / 150.05 = 1.82 inch < 7.8 inch:. O.K.
| |
| Where 7.8" is the distance between the bottom web and the pool liner. Therefore, the deformed beam will not impact the pool liner.
| |
| 5 = 8 where L = 42.15 inches 2
| |
| 8=6-b 8 = 0.0864 radians co Length L / 4 Bending Strain = 0.0342 6>,<
| |
| where c = 4.165" distance between neutral axis and outermost fibre Length = L/4 since there will be four plastic moments in between supports,:. Length = L/4 L = 42.15 inch spacing between support legs For 1.82 inch deformation of bottom plate, the falling object or the bottom plate willnot impact the pool liner. ASTM Specification A 240-93a, Table 2 specifies a minimum elongation of 40% for Type 304L stainless steel material. The Type 304L material is ductile and has adequate margin to accommodate 0.0342 strain during fuel assembly drop. A major conservatism is to neglect the energy required to fail the base welds between fuel cell and bottom plate.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 300
| |
| | |
| 44 4 %44 IE. ' I... 0 %.l 44, ~ \
| |
| * Ct, ak rs ~ t I j " 4 44
| |
| 'r
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.2.3.1.2 Fuel Assembly Drops into Cell and Strikes Support Leg For this hypothetical fuel assembly deep drop, the fuel assembly drops through the fuel cell onto the supportleg.
| |
| The external energy at the point of contact: W h = 1.591 x 172 = 273.652 in-kips At this energy, the support leg female threads will shear first. The female threads are in 304L stainless steel tube, where as the male threads are in high strength ASTM-A564 Type 630 stainless steel. The tensile strength of 304L tube bar material is 68.1 ksi, whereas for the 630 precipitation hardened steel is 140 ksi. Therefore, the female threads will strip first.
| |
| Qp~rdw'>re hh Lee+ ~a~g' Cylinder 304L SS 68.1 ksi Threaded Rod A564, Type 630 140 Neck down Portion A564, Type 630 140 Support pad F304L 63.25 Shear area of internal threads: (From Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition, page 1279)
| |
| An = 3.1416 x n x Le x Ds;[ (1/2n) + 0.57735 (Ds;- En g]
| |
| where n = number of threads per inch, for M80x6 threads n= 6 mm or 4.23 threads/inch Le = length of thread engagement, 40 mm or 1.57 inch Ds;= minimum major diameter of external threads, 79.32 mm or 3.123 inch Es = maximum pitch diameter of internal thread, 76.478 mm or 3.011 inch Substituting An = 11.915 in Ultimate shear strength of the female threads:
| |
| Pu = (Su/2) x An = 405.7 kips where Su = 68.1 ksi for 304L stainless steel at 150' After stripping the female threads, the rack bottom plate will provide support and also absorb the impact energy. For conservative evaluation, all remaining energy of the drop is used to calculate the impact load where the cylindrical portion of the female support leg impacts the bottom bearing pad and neglects the energy absorbed in the bottom plate.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 301
| |
| | |
| Energy of the drop = W h = 1.591 x 172 = 273.652 in-kips Energy consumed in shearing threads= 95.747 in-kips Remaining energy for impact to the bearing pad is = 273.652 - 95.747 = 177.905 in-kips This energy is converted to get initial velocity = (1 /2) m V'gain only the weight of the fuel assembly (1.591 kips) is used to get maximum velocity after shearing threads.
| |
| 177.905 = (1 /2) (1.591/386.4) V
| |
| :. V' 86,414 (in/sec)'he support leg willtravel 36 mm before it impacts the bearing pad. For conservative impact, the target is considered rigid and the velocity after impact is considered zero. The initial velocity of Vo = ~86,414 in/sec and Vf= 0.0, s = 36 mm, and using constant deceleration:
| |
| 2 86414
| |
| -30,485 in/sec OR -79 g s 2s 2 x 36 25.4 The impact load is = W x deceleration
| |
| = 1.591 x 79
| |
| = 125.7 kips.
| |
| This impact load is lower than the load required to shear female threads (405.7 kips). For this case the inelastic strain energy is confined to the MSOx6 threaded portion of the support leg. The maximum load imparted to the spent fuel pool floor is limited to ultimate strength of the threaded portion of the leg and is 405.7 kips.
| |
| Due to limited mechanism for inelastic energy absorption, the support leg female threads will fail.
| |
| The load imparted to the floor will pass through the stainless steel liner. The stresses in the reinforced concrete floor are calculated using Boussinesq's solution (Reference 3.35), where P is equal to the maximum force transferred through the support legs to the floor. Using the Boussinesq solution, the maximum concrete compressive stress is at point C.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 302
| |
| | |
| ic C % ~ F4 P 0 V a P
| |
| C A At point C r=0 t = 0.25" pool liner thickness z = bearing pad diameter + 2t = 6.6929+ 2 x 0.25 = 7.1929 in 23 2 y 2)2
| |
| (
| |
| A =
| |
| 108.36in'oncrete Compressive Stress = P / A
| |
| = 3,744 psi < 4,462.5 psi:. O.K.
| |
| where concrete allowable stress is 4,462.5 psi for accidental impact load for 3D confined concrete.
| |
| For normal condition, concrete allowable bearing stress = $ (0.85) fc (per ACI 349-85, section 10.15)
| |
| For accident condition with impact load, allowable compressive stress = $ (0.85) fc x 2 x DIF where: $ = 0.7 per section 9.3 of ACI 349-85 Fc = 3,000 psi minimum strength 28 days cured concrete DIF = 1.25 Dynamic impact factor for high strain rate per Table C-1 of ACI 349-85
| |
| :. concrete allowable stress = 0.7 x 0.85 x 3,000 x 2 x 1.25
| |
| = 4,462.5 psi 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 303
| |
| | |
| In addition, the concrete Code ACI 349-85, Section 9.2.6 states that "when considering these concentrated loads, local section strengths and stresses may be exceeded provided there will be no loss of intended function of any safety related systems." Since 3 foot thick reinforced concrete spent fuel pool floor is supported on hard rock and is completely confined, the localized spalling of
| |
| ,concrete will not jeopardize the safety function of the pool.
| |
| The indications are that, at distance below the support pad equal to the diameter of the support pad (6.6929"), the stresses are below allowable stresses. The concrete directly under the support pad is a local condition with three-dimensional confinement and, therefore, will not be damaged by the .
| |
| impact load.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.3.2 Fuel Assembly - Shallow Drops For this hypothetical accident drop of the fuel assembly, shallow drops, two cases were analyzed.
| |
| The acceptance criteria for top of rack impacts are that the required inelastic deformation must be less than 10% of the length of the deforming structural mechanism and that the ductility factor remains less than 20.
| |
| For drops onto the tops of the racks, the mathematical model consists of a vertical prismatic member with a height equal to the distance from the top of the rack to the top of the borated stainless steel.
| |
| Because inelastic response is confined to this upper region, the values calculated for inelastic strain and ductility factors are conservative. Ifthe entire rack were to be considered, the ductility factors would be reduced. The number of tubes considered in this model is the number of tubes directly impacted plus the number of tubes immediately adjacent. Due to the strong interconnection between tubes, this assumption is conservative. As the dropped object impacts the top of the racks, the affected tubes yield; however, the effect does not remain localized. It will spread to the surrounding tubes through the strong interconnection provided by the welded connecting tabs. The assumption of the spreading of load only to immediately adjacent tubes is conservative.
| |
| First buckling strength of the structural tube is calculated. From this it will be investigated whether the structural tube buckling occurs in elastic or plastic range.
| |
| Euler Buckling of Structural Tube Between Connection Tab Plates
| |
| $ = clear length between pitch of the tabs I = cross section moment of inertia of the structural tube A = cross section area of the structural tube E = Young's Modulus of the tube material at 150'F 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 304
| |
| | |
| EI7P 0
| |
| AP Rack i~itch A I E 4 2 fgge ~n Type 2 49.29 2.59 29.17 27.9x10',277 Type 3 49.29 2.65 31.29 27.9x10',338 Type 4 48.23 2.59 29.17 27.9x10 1 333 Since 0 is well above the yield stress, the above results indicates that buckling will not occur in the elastic range.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.3.2.1 Flat Impact on Top Interface of the Racks For this hypothetical accident, the fuel assembly with handling tool is dropped &om 12 inches above the rack, the fuel assembly impacts the top of the rack and falls flat on top of the rack.
| |
| For this case it is assumed that the fuel assembly is dropped vertically onto the top of the rack. After initially striking the top of the rack, the fuel assembly and handling gear rotates and falls flat on top of the racks. The total kinetic energy delivered to the top of the racks is little diminished due to the initial strike. This is due to the fact that the linear kinetic energy is converted to the rotational kinetic energy by means of a couple equal to the weight and inertial force of the fuel rod times the horizontal component of the distance between the center of gravity of the falling fuel assembly and the point of initial strike upon the top of the racks.
| |
| The kinetic energy at impact= Wx d where: Weight of the fuel assembly and the tool is 1,591 lb.
| |
| The drop height for shallow drop is 12 inch+ half height of fuel assembly d = 12+ (160/2) = 92 inch Kinetic energy at impact = W x d = 1591 x 92 = 146,372 in-lb Pitch of fuel cells: Type 2 Rack 8.43 inch Type 3 Rack 9.23 inch Type 4 Rack 8.43 inch For all the accident analyses presented in this section, the total number of tubes considered in the analysis is that contained within the footprint of the impacted area, plus the tubes that are immediately adjacent. The length of fuel assembly is 160 inch or approximately 18 pitch. For new racks, every other cell is a structural tube. Therefore, initially a minimum of 9 structural tubes will 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 305
| |
| | |
| \1 ~ + I be impacted. The other 9 adjacent structural tubes willalso absorb impact energy. So effectively, 2 x 9 or 18 structural tubes will participate in absorbing impact energy. The top 10 inch portion, above the borated stainless steel portion of the tube, will absorb energy.
| |
| The Type 2 rack structural tubes have the minimum cross section area, and will have the largest deformation during fuel drop accident. The following calculations were performed for Type 2 racks.
| |
| However, the results envelope all three type of racks.
| |
| A,tr - effective cross section area for 18 structural tubes.
| |
| A,ft= 2.59 x 18 = 46.62 in~
| |
| The top 10 inches of the tube, above the borated stainless steel, will absorb all energy. Therefore, h= 10 inch Elastic Strain Energy = 2 off 0v2hb E
| |
| = 4,478 in-lb The elastic strain energy absorbed is less than the total drop energy. Therefore, there will be some inelastic deformation.
| |
| Total drop energy = Elastic strain energy + Inelastic strain energy 146,372 = 4,478 + Inelastic strain energy
| |
| :. Inelastic strain energy = 146,372 - 4,478 = 141,894 in-lb Inelastic Strain Energy = 0 h e,A,< = 141,894 in-lb e;= 0.0131 0
| |
| e el = " = 0.00083 E
| |
| 6 = (6 t + 6,)(10) = (0.00083 + 0.0131)(10) = 0.14 in
| |
| ~ct +6 0 00083 + 0131 16.8 Dunility Facior G,t .00083 Ductility factor = 16.8 < 20:. O.K.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.3.2.2 End-On Impact During an end-on impact hypothetical accident, the fuel assembly with handling tool is dropped &om 12 inches above the rack, and the fuel assembly impacts the top of the rack vertically.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 306
| |
| | |
| The drop energy W x d is 1591 x 12 =19,100 in-lb where W = 1,591 lb (weight of the fuel assembly and the tool)
| |
| The drop height is 12 inches.
| |
| For all the accident analyses presented in this section, the total number of tubes considered in the analysis is that contained within the footprint of the impacted area, plus the tubes that are immediately adjacent. Initial contact will engage two structural tubes. However, due to interconnection between the tubes, a total of 8 tubes willabsorb impact energy.
| |
| The Type 2 rack structural tubes have the minimum cross section area, and will have the largest deformation during a fuel drop accident. The following calculations were performed for Type 2 racks. However, the results envelope all three type of racks.
| |
| A,tr- effective cross section area for 8 structural tubes.
| |
| A,tt = 2.59 x 8 = 20.72 in~
| |
| The top 10 inches of the tube, above the borated stainless steel, will absorb all energy. Therefore, h= 10 inch Elastic Strain Energy = o z 1 h 2 in-lb 2 'E = 1,990 The elastic strain energy absorbed is less than the total drop energy. Therefore, there will be some inelastic deformation.
| |
| Total drop energy = Elastic strain energy + Inelastic strain energy 19,100 = 1,990+ Inelastic strain energy
| |
| :. Inelastic strain energy = 19,100 - 1,990 = 17,110 in-lb Inelastic Strain Energy = 0 h F, 2< = 17,110 in-lb e;= 0.00357 e = 0~ = 0.00083 5 = (6 t + 6, )(10) = (0.00083 + 0.00357)(10) = 0.044 in
| |
| ~,t +~t, 0.00083 + .00357 Ductility Factor =
| |
| .00083 Ductility factor = 5.3 < 20:. O.K.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 307
| |
| | |
| ~ '
| |
| 3.53.2.4 Tornado Missile Impact A tornado missile impact on the storage racks was considered. Design values for tornado wind speed and missile characteristics are those established in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan 3.5.1.4 (revision 2, July 1981). The missile is characterized as a 1490 pound wood pole, 35 feet in length with a diameter of 13.5 inches. A tornado wind velocity of 132 mph (59 meter/per second) is considered per Ginna UFSAR, Section 3.5.2.1. The impact energy when the missile hits the storage racks is calculated in RG8cE Letter to NRC dated January 18, 1984, Docket No 50-244 (Reference 3.39) and is summarized below:
| |
| Vertical kinetic energy at impact 79,000 ft-lb Horizontal kinetic energy at impact 8,800 ft-Ib The vertical missile impact produces the largest deformation of the racks. The rack deformation due to horizontal missile impact will be lower than the vertical impact. Both of these impact are evaluated in the following section.
| |
| The acceptance criteria for top of rack impacts are that the required inelastic deformation must be less than 10% of the length of the deforming structural mechanism and that the ductility factor remains less than 20.
| |
| Vertical Missile Impact The wooden pole diameter is 13.5 inches. The diagonal dimensions of structural tubes is 11.74 inches for Type 2 and Type 4 racks, and 12.02 inch for Type 3 Racks. Therefore, as a minimum two structural tubes will be impacted by a vertical impact.
| |
| For drops onto the tops of the racks, the mathematical model consists of a vertical prismatic member with a height equal to the full length of the fuel tube. The number of tubes considered in this model is the number of tubes directly impacted plus the number of tubes immediately adjacent. Due to the strong interconnection between tubes, this assumption is conservative. As the dropped object impacts the top of the racks, the affected tubes yield; however, the effect'does not remain localized.
| |
| It will spread to the surrounding tubes through the strong interconnection provided by the welded connecting tabs. The assumption of the spreading of load only to immediately adjacent tubes is very conservative.
| |
| The vertical impact energy is 79,000 ft-ib or 948,000 in-lb Initial contact will engage two structural tubes. However, due to interconnection between the tubes, a total of 8 structural tubes will absorb impact energy.
| |
| The Type 2 rack structural tubes have the minimum cross section area, and will have largest deformation during a missile impact. The following calculations were performed for Type 2 racks.
| |
| However, the results envelope all three types of racks.
| |
| A,~- effective cross section area for 8 structural tubes.
| |
| A,a = 2.59 x 8 = 20.72 in'1-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 308
| |
| | |
| The wooden pole will split on impact. Also the wood is a good energy absorber. However, the energy absorbed in the wooden pole is neglected as a conservatism. The impact will be of a long duration; for that reason, the entire length of the fuel tube (158.5 inch) will absorb the impact energy. Therefore, h = 158.5 inch Elastic Strain Energy = 0yz 1 h 2 off = 31,542 in-lb E
| |
| The elastic strain energy absorbed is less than the total kinetic energy. Therefore, there willbe some inelastic deformation.
| |
| Total missile impact energy = Elastic strain energy+ Inelastic strain energy 948,000 = 31,542+ Inelastic strain energy
| |
| :. Inelastic strain energy = 948,000 - 31,542 = 916,458 in-lb Inelastic Strain Energy = 0 h F,A,< = 916,458 in-lb e;= 0.0121 6 cl =
| |
| 0 E
| |
| = 0.00083 5 = (6,> + 6,)(10) = (0.00083 + 0.0121)(158.5) = 2.05 in
| |
| +
| |
| ct i, 0.00083 + .0121 Ductility Factor =
| |
| .00083 Ductility factor = 15.6 < 20:. O.K.
| |
| Horizontal Missile Impact The horizontal kinetic energy of the missile impact is 8,800 ft-lb. This impact energy is much less than the vertical missile impact. In addition, due to the length of the pole being 35 feet, the large number of structural tubes will absorb the impact energy. For this reason, the rack deformation and ductility factor due to horizontal missile impact will be less than those of the vertical missile impact.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 309
| |
| | |
| ~ 1 3.5.3.2.5 Gate Drop The gate separating the spent fuel storage pool from the cask loading pit is located on the east end of the spent fuel storage pool. The gate is approximately 28'ong and 2'.5" wide. The gate weighs approximately 2100 pounds. The canal gate is considered a heavy load per NUREG-0612 criteria.
| |
| The gate handling procedures will be changed such that it will be lifted within the spent fuel pool using a special tool suspended &om a single- failure proof auxiliary building crane. In a safety evaluation report dated December 31, 1984, the NRC StaF reviewed and approved modifications to the auxiliary building crane in order to meet the crane single-failure criteria of NUREG-0612 and NUREG-0554. Therefore, handling of the canal gate will be performed in accordance with the .
| |
| guidelines of NUREG-0612 with regard to limiting the chance of unacceptable heavy load drop.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.6 Rack Drops The lifting analysis of the racks was performed to qualify the racks to lifting criteria of NUREG-0612. Section 3.5.3.1.19 provides results of the lifting analysis. The results indicate adequate margin against lifting by either a redundant or non-redundant liftsystem.
| |
| The installation procedures willpreclude moving a rack over a previously installed rack. Racks will be lifted in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool using single-failure proof crane and lifting attachments.
| |
| This will preclude rack drop analysis. However, the analysis is performed to verify structural strength of the design to withstand rack drops. Ifa rack drops to the floor, the maximum total force would be limited to the crush strength of the racks. The crush strength of racks is provided in this section.
| |
| During rack drops, most of the energy will be absorbed in the crushing of racks. Therefore, rack buckling and crush strength are calculated first..
| |
| Euler Buckling of Structural Tube Between Connection Tab Plates Earlier calculation for Euler's buckling of the structural tubes has shown that for all three type racks, the 0 is much more higher than the o. Therefore, the tubes willnot buckle as a beam in the elastic range.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 310
| |
| | |
| Overall Rack Buckling E Im A L)
| |
| Where L, = effective length for buckling, 2x height of racks = 2 x 158.5 = 317 inch A = cross section area of structural members in a rack I = cross section moment of inertia of rack structural members E = Young's Modulus = 27.9 x 10'b/in'or 304L SS at 150'F (Note: Lowest of East-West or North-South properties are taken)
| |
| RACK A lnorthsouth 2 4 XKl~e Ln 2A 113.9 43,791 1,054 2B 129.5 64,009 1,354 3A 92.7 32,726 967 3B 82.1 25,998 868 3C 66.2 12,079 500 3D 66.2 12,079 500 3E 84.8 26,008 840 4 25.9 292 31 Allof these oare higher than the o therefore, racks willnot buckle in beam mode in elastic range.
| |
| Local Plate Buckling Crush strength of each rack is based upon the effective area, reduced for buckling times the compressiveyield. Thisrepresents fullmobilizationofallthecellsofthcrack. Thejustification for this is based upon compressive yield of the cells without general elastic buckling.
| |
| Reference 3.37 - Blodgett pp. 2.12-4 through 9.
| |
| Type 2 and Type 4 Racks 0 t 7P(4)(27900) 0.0787 = 9.43 ksi 12(1-v ) b 12(1-0.3 ) 8.14 where t = tube wall thickness = 0.0787 in b = inside dimension of structural tube = 8.14 in E, = 4 (Reference 3.37, Blodgett) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 311
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| * Type 3 Racks oo, = 8.982 ksi, using t = 0.0787 in and b = 8.34 in Crush Strength
| |
| : 1) Crush strength based upon effective crush area and yield strength of material.
| |
| : 2) Elastic buckling of individual tubes or the rack as a whole is precluded.
| |
| Using conservative assumptions:
| |
| o+a y cr where A = total cross-sectional area of the structural tube where o= yield stress = 23.15 ksi for 304L stainless steel 150' A = total cross sectional area of the tubes.
| |
| A,ff= effective area of tubes, reduced to account for local buckling,
| |
| : Note, Type 2 Racks '
| |
| A,~
| |
| 0.704 Type 3 Racks '
| |
| A.n 0.694 Methodology and Models The mathematical model for developing the rack crush strength is that of uniform compressive yield under a uniform applied load at the top shown in the following sketch.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 312
| |
| | |
| Crush Strength Model UNIFORM LOAD ElASTIC +
| |
| INELAS TIC DEFORMATION MEMBER WITH AREA ~ Sum ofAREA(ceIlsf Crush strength of each rack is based upon the effective area, reduced for buckling times the compressive yield. This represents full mobilization of all the cells of the rack. The justification for this is based upon compressive yield of the cells without general elastic buckling.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 313
| |
| | |
| The shallow drop was examined and it was found that with ductility factor less than 20 and deformation less than one inch, the distortion of the cells would be confined to the portion of cells above the borated stainless steel, and hence, not affect the K factor used in the criticality analysis.
| |
| The conservatism used in the mechanical accident analyses for various drops indicate that, minor distortion of the rack is limited in the vicinity of the impact area. There is no gross deformation of the rack away Rom the impact area.
| |
| Individual hypothetical accident cases are summarized below.
| |
| I Fuel Assembly - Straight Deep Drop The kinetic energy of the falling fuel assembly is such that it can be expected that the bottom plate of the racks willbe separated Rom the bottom of the cells due to failure of the welds (bottom plate to cell). The bottom plate would be supported by the support legs, located nominally at 37" on center for Type 2 and Type 3 racks. It is found that the bottom plate would yield and deform, deflecting about 2.12" with the fuel assembly impacting at the midpoint between support legs. For Type 4 racks, the bottom plate would yield and deform, deflecting about 1.82" with fuel assembly impacting, approximately, at the midpoint between support legs. Therefore, it is concluded that this would not result in any distress to the spent fuel pool floor.
| |
| Fuel Assembly - Straight Deep Drop onto Support Leg For this case the inelastic strain energy is confined to the M80x6 threaded portion of the support leg.
| |
| The maximum load imparted to the spent fuel pool floor is limited to ultimate strength of the threaded portion of the leg and is 405.7 kips.
| |
| Due to limited mechanism for inelastic energy absorption, the support leg female threads will fail.
| |
| The load imparted to the floor will pass through the stainless steel liner. The stresses in the reinforced concrete floor are calculated using Boussinesq's solution (Reference 3.35). The indications are that, at distance below the support pad equal to the diameter of the support pad (6.6929"), the stresses are below allowable stresses. The concrete directly under the support pad is a local condition with three-dimensional confinement and, therefore, will not be damaged by the impact load. The maximum deformation of the bottom plate will be 1.42 inches (36 mm) after female threads are stripped.
| |
| Fuel Assembly - Shallow Drops For this case it was assumed that the fuel assembly is dropped vertically onto the top of the rack.
| |
| After initially striking the top of the rack, the fuel assembly and handling gear rotates and falls flat on top of the racks. The total kinetic energy delivered to the top of the racks is little diminished due to the initial strike. This is due to the fact that the linear kinetic energy is converted to the rotational kinetic energy by means of a couple equal to the weight and inertial force of the fuel rod times the horizontal component of the distance between the center of gravity of the falling fuel assembly and the point of initial strike upon the top of the racks. The results of the analysis indicate that distortion of cells willbe limited to the portion of the cells above the top of the borated stainless steel. The ductility factor is less than 20 for both shallow drops and the maximum deformation of the top of the rack is 0.14 inches.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 315
| |
| | |
| The results of the analysis indicate that distortion of the cells will be limited to the portion of the cells above the top of the borated stainless steel.
| |
| Inelastic Total Strain Ductility Deformation
| |
| ~c~de 1 ShLdÃK ~Fact r ~~nc >~e)
| |
| F.A., Shallow Drop, 0.0131 16.8 0.14 Flat Impact F.A., Shallow Drop, 0.00357 5.3 0.044 End-on Impact Tornado Missile Impact Vertical and horizontal tornado missile impacts were considered. The wooden pole missile is dropped on top of the racks. Considering the impact energy and the footprint of the impact among vertical and horizontal impact, the vertical impact causes the highest deformation and highest ductility factor for the racks. The results indicate that the distortion of the cell will be limited to the footprint area and adjacent fuel cells. The deformation of the top of the impacted fuel cell will be 2.05 inches and ductility factor of structural tubes will be limited to 15.6.
| |
| Gate Drop, Rack Drop and Cask Drop The consolidated fuel, pool canal gate, storage racks and the spent fuel shipping cask are considered heavy loads per NUREG-0612. There will be administrative control for movement of these hardware in the spent fuel pool area. Also they will be lifted using a single-failure proof crane and a single-failure proof lifting system. Handling of these hardware in the spent fuel pool area will be performed in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-0612 with regard to limiting the chance of unacceptable heavy load drop. Reference 3.23, NRC Staff safety evaluation report provides exclusion of heavy load drops meeting these criteria.
| |
| 3.5.3.2.9 Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Differential Temperature Induced Loads - Abnormal Condition ( T, )
| |
| This thermal condition is produced when the pool water bulk temperature increases due to loss of artificial cooling. The pool liner temperature is kept the same as the normal operating temperature to generate conservative stresses in the rack. The most conservative analysis of the rack would then be to assume that the bottoms of the legs of the rack remain in their original positions and that the uniform temperature of the rack itself has reached to accident condition temperature. The maximum loading would thus be caused by the constraint at the bottoms of the legs and the uniform thermal growth in the rack.
| |
| Section 3.5.3.1.10 presents the analysis and results of the rack thermal analysis under abnormal condition (Tg. The results indicate adequate margin exists in the storage racks to accommodate differential temperature induced load due to loss of artificial cooling.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 316
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.3 Tabulation of Results Table 3.5-141 Results of Support Leg Stresses 4;.',;:'':.,'-:-::-::,.:::;:,':.:::;::lCombinatioii's':,:.';:;.-','',;i!:;:;:"::::::,Oil':,"'':'-:! ::;.:..:,.Str'ess';(ps'i);:::;;;i';;::,'-::.';:,:,:::Stxess';.(psi)'.';::;''.:.;::":';:-:') Fact'or',"(':/)';'i<
| |
| D+L evel A Prim Membrane m 6,156 15,700 155.0 Primary Membrane+ Bending 16,995 23,550 38.6 m+ Pb D+L+E evel B Prim Membrane m 6,156 20,880 239.2 Primary Membrane+ Bending 16,995 31,322 84.3 m+ Pb Avera e Shear Stress 2,109 9,420 346.7 D+L+E'vel D Prim Membrane m 7,651 26,448 245.6 Primary Membrane+ Bending m+ Pb 24,640 39,672 61.0 Avera e Shear Stress 3,306 28,123 750.7 Welds: D +E evel A 11,677 21,000 79.8 D+E+ Ta evel B 11,733 27,930 138.0 D+E'+ Ta evel D 18,302 29,400 60.6 Base Metal: D+ E evel A 8,257 9,260 12.1 D+E+ Ta evelB 8,297 11,725 41.3 D + E'+ Ta (Level D) 12,942 28,123 117.3 Notes:
| |
| L- Live load is zero.
| |
| Design Factor (%) = [(Allowable - Actual) / Actual] x 100 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 317
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-142 Results of Concrete Stresses
| |
| :5::,":-'::,:i'::~5ii'."':::,;::':Combiri'a'tion's':',:-.'".''.:.:":'I::::i'i"',''.'';;'::'::::. ";.:',-j: Str'ess'."'(p'si)'~ji,:<',:: -,',"~Str'ess (psi).';I:-',.:"::. '::,:,,''.'::ll Factor,,"(/o)',::;:,. I Maximum Slab Bearin 520 3,570 586.5 Boussinesq's Solution 779 3,570 358.2 D+E Maximum Slab Bearin 1,207 3,570 195.8 Boussinesq's Solution 1,811 3,570 97.1 D+
| |
| Slab Bearin E'aximum 1,501 3,570 137.8 Boussinesq's Solution 2,251 3,570 58.5 Notes:
| |
| Concrete's bearing allowable = $ (0.85) fc' 0.70(0.85)3000 psi
| |
| * 2' 3,570 psi
| |
| : 1. Since Area of concrete >>area of pad = md'/4 = 35.18 in, bearing allowable is increased by factor of 2 per Reference 3.5.2.2.2.1.
| |
| 2 L- Live load is zero 3 -
| |
| T, Thermal load is zero for concrete.
| |
| Table 3.5-143 Results of Spent Fuel Pool Liner Stresses D+L+E Liner Bearin Stress 1,207 23,400 1838.7 D+L+E'iner Bearing Stress 1,501 23,400 1459.0 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 318
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-144 Results of Tab Stresses
| |
| ',-:.::-:-';-'i:.:::,::j'~'-'~!7;::::,Coiiibin'aeons)'::.':.:'"::.'''~j.':::;"::.::::.:,::::-; jjI:::Str'es's'''(jsi);:"-::;:::;'.':,': i'~;.:,".;":Sf'r'es's,(psi)')',"";!,:,;.:.:~ I,';::::;:Fac't'o'r'::,(/0)'.'-:.:.
| |
| To evel A '+L+E+
| |
| Prim Membrane Pm 660 15,700 Lar e Primary Membrane 5,759 23,550 Large
| |
| + Bendin Pm+ Pb)
| |
| Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 15,615 46,300 196 Avera e Prim Shear Stress 4,021 9,420 134 Weld Stress illet Weld Shear 6,308 21,000 232 Primary Membrane
| |
| + Bendin m+ Pb 9,659 21,000 117 Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 19,515 46,300 137 D+L+E+ Ta evel B Prim Membrane Pm 660 20,881 Lar e Primary Membrane
| |
| + Bendin m+ Pb 5,759 31,322 Large Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 15,562 44,080 183 Avera e Prim Shear Stress 4,021 9,420 134 Weld Stress illet Weld Shear 6,308 27,930 343 Primary Membrane
| |
| + Bendin m+ Pb 9,659 27,930 189 Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 19,462 44,080 126 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 319
| |
| | |
| '.:;:.::4.'::i>::,:.'.":'.,':,';:. Coinbiii'ations'::.'4@j'":"::.';%~'::i ': ;;<<~,'":,:;Str'es's':(jsi),'i",;:,':"') '.':.''Str'ess'(nisi)';,':"::,
| |
| D+L+E'+Ta evel D Prim Membrane m 1,162 26,448 Lar e Primary Membrane
| |
| + Bendin Pm+ Pb 10,148 39,672 291 Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 19,951 44,080 120 Avera e Prim Shear Stress 7,768 28,123 262 Weld Stress illet Weld Shear 11,262 29,400 161 Primary Membrane
| |
| + Bendin 16,916 29,400 74 Pm+ Pb Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 26,719 44,080 65 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 320
| |
| | |
| Table 3.5-145 Results of Tube Stresses
| |
| :;:Ij:;:.,'"I'acfor,."..(%)~"."ll D+L+E+ To evel A Prim Membrane m 4,543 15,700 246 Primary Membrane
| |
| + Bendin Pm+Pb 4,872 23,550 383 Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 14,728 46,300 214 Avera e Shear Stress 1,265 9,420 Lar e D+L+E+ Ta evel B Prim Membrane m 4,543 20,881 360 Primary Membrane 4,872 31,322 542
| |
| + Bendin m+ Pb Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 14,675 44,080 200 Avera e Shear Stress 1,265 9,420 Lar e D+L+ To+P evel B Prim Membrane m 5,443 20,881 283 Primary Membrane 7,205 31,322 334
| |
| + Bendin m+ Pb Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 17,008 44,080 159 D+ L + E'+ Ta evel D Prim Membrane m 6,979 26,448 279 Primary Membrane
| |
| + Bendin m+ Pb 7,202 39,672 450 Range of Primary
| |
| + Second 17,005 44,080 159 Avera e Shear Stress 1 265 9 420 Lar e 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 321
| |
| | |
| 4 ~ w
| |
| ~,'
| |
| | |
| ',:::"'.;:.'"Allo'wable';.'';,,::",,:::,"'".;:,.:::,".":,":.",,':Desig'ri':.::,::;:;::i:,::''
| |
| ,.:"::,St'r'ess',(p'si);::::,::,:,:,,':;;:,':;;:I.,'.,: Fa'ctor'.'(%) '''-'.,
| |
| Tube-to-Base Plate Fillet Weld D+L+E+To Base Metal 11,957 46,300 287 (Level A) Weld 16,575 46,300 179 D+ LIE+ Ta Base Metal 11,957 44,080 268 (Level B) Weld 16,575 44,080 166 D+L+E'+ Ta Base Metal 20,652 44,080 113 (Level D) Weld 29,969 44,080 47 Table 3.5-146 Results of Base Plate Stresses I:-'.,':;! :'::.:Maximu'iii'':.,",,:::.':i 4!.:::i'''Allowable,.:'::':..".-::::,'NY.'::",:;:::,:,'9esig'n'-':."'''':':'.:;:
| |
| :":,,j'', Str'ess::.'(psi)"',"',"," :;>",,"Stres's''(p'si)';','::'-.";:':,,':,;;:::;!;=':.;: Factor.,"'( fo)'-:."',;:::!I D+L+E+ T0 evel A Prim Membrane m 767 15,700 Lar e Primary Membrane+ Bending Pm+ Pb 4,286 23,550 Large Range of Primary + Secondary 10,227 46,300 353 Stress D+L+E+ Ta evel B Prim Membrane m 767 20,881 Lar e Primary Membrane+ Bending m+ Pb 4,286 31,322 Large Range of Primary+ Secondary 5,842 44,080 Large Stress D+L+E'+ Ta evel D Prim Membrane Pm 767 26,448 Lar e Primary Membrane+ Bending m+ Pb 4,286 39,672 Large Range of Primary + Secondary Stress 5,842 44,080 Large 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 322
| |
| | |
| 3.5.3.4 Discussion of Results and Significance The analysis and design of the Ginna Spent Fuel Storage Racks provide assurances that the racks will perform the functions as required.
| |
| The assembly of structural tubes creates a sufficiently stiffand strong rack structure. The associated inter-rack connections and welding provide the necessary strength and stiflness to accommodate all of the rack loading conditions. In addition, a large number of support legs provide for a wide distribution of force and reactions and adequate structural margins.
| |
| The various loadings and resulting consequences were examined in detail by means of nonlinear dynamic analysis. One of the major loading effects is the impact of fuel assemblies against the cell walls. While the impact effect is of very short duration, it enhances the potential for sliding and tipping. Consequential impact effects were analyzed; namely the impact of support legs upon the spent fuel pool floor during tipping.
| |
| Given the evaluated seismic events, the changes in the final position of the racks are small as compared to the initial position prior to the seismic event. The effect of tipping is such that no net change of position results. The only changes in position result &om sliding; however, the results of the 3D whole pool multi-rack analyses and the 3D single rack model studies indicate little net change in the gaps between racks. The maximum closure of gaps is such that no significant changes in the gaps result during any single seismic event. Furthermore, the combined gap closures resulting from a combination of 5 OBE's and 1 SSE show that there are no rack-to-rack or rack-to-wall impacts.
| |
| The conservatisms inherent in the criteria and methodology indicate that the racks have sufficiently large margins as shown by comparisons of calculated and allowable stresses.
| |
| Detailed results are found in sections 3.5.3.1 and 3.5.3.2, which provide the results of the normal condition and accident condition evaluations respectively. Section 3.5.3.3 provides a tabulation of all results.
| |
| 3.5.3.5 Conclusion It is shown that the spent fuel storage system structures at RG&E's R. E. Ginna Unit 1 are robust and that they provide safe storage of spent fuel under any of the normal, upset or hypothetical accident conditions. The design and supporting analyses of the high density free standing storage racks indicate that the spent fuel and the consolidated fuel canister can be stored safely in the new ATEA designed racks.
| |
| During the seismic events, impacts will occur on the racks due to the impacts of the fuel assemblies or canisters as well as the impacts of the rack legs on the floor during tipping. The analyses show during OBE or SSE seismic events, there are no rack-to-rack or rack-to-wall impacts.
| |
| The racks themselves are very rigid structures, capable of resisting large loads. The fact that the racks are &ee to slide has two significant effects; 1) the lateral forces are thereby limited, and 2) the sliding dissipates energy. The tipping of the racks is limited by the restoring moment due to the weight of the rack, the fuel, and the contained water. The hydrodynamic coupling is also a restorative force. The effect of the water coupling is also an energy dissipator. The hydrodynamic 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 323
| |
| | |
| V pressures develop in order to force water &om a closing gap. The vibratory nature of seismic events, while resulting in amplified loading, also results in rapid load reversals. The free standing characteristics of the racks and the hy'drodynamic coupling are very effective in responding to the rapid load reversals.
| |
| Stresses in the new ATEA racks and in the existing U.S. Tool & Die racks, pool liner and spent fuel pool are below allowable. The deformations of this hardware are within allowable limits. Also, the results show the ruggedness of the spent fuel rack design.
| |
| The structural evaluation presented here shows that the RGkE's Ginna Unit 1 spent fuel storage system meets all applicable structural criteria to maintain a subcritical array for the spent fuel and keep radiation exposure within federal limits. The analysis of the spent fuel storage system demonstrates that the structure satisfies the requirements of Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Results of the analysis show the design satisfies the statutory requirements for licensing.
| |
| 3.5.3.6 Anticipated Impact on Operations of R. E. Ginna Nuclear Plant The racks are structurally designed to provide storage for spent fuel assemblies or consolidated fuel canisters without restriction. Both spent fuel or consolidated fuel canisters can be safely stored in any of the racks without restrictions.
| |
| The high density spent fuel storage racks are &ee standing; hence &ee to slide or tip without rack to rack impacts under seismic events. Both the old and new racks do not impact the walls of the spent fuel pool under any of the normal, abnormal and faulted conditions. These conditions include seismic OBE and SSE conditions. During seismic events, loads from the rack supports onto the spent fuel storage pool fioor are within the allowable concrete bearing stresses. The liner itself will not be subject to any significant loads due to any sliding of the racks.
| |
| Under the hypothetical accident drop of a fuel assembly or tornado missile impact, minor distortion of the racks willoccur. These rack distortions are limited to the foot print area of the impact and fuel cell in the vicinity of the impact area. There willbe no gross distortions of the racks or any adverse effects upon the plant structures or equipment.
| |
| For the consolidated fuel canister, pool canal gate and spent fuel shipping cask, administrative procedures will require liAing this hardware using NUREG-0612, single failure proof crane and single failure proof lifting and rigging system. Also, during the removal of the old racks and during the installation of the new racks, that movement over the spent fuel pool shall be performed using single failure proof liftsystem.
| |
| In summary, the functioning of the racks under the specified loading, or events, will have no detrimental consequences to the spent fuel pool or plant operation.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 324
| |
| | |
| ==3.6 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| 3.1 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.5.1.4, "Missile Generated by Natural Phenomena," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revision 2, July 1981.
| |
| 3.2 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.1, "Seismic Design Parameters," U.S.
| |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revision 2, August 1989.
| |
| 3.3 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.3, "Seismic Subsystem Analysis," U.S.
| |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revision 2, August 1989.
| |
| 3.4 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix D, "Technical Position on Spent Fuel Pool Racks," Revision 1, July 1981.
| |
| 3.5 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.5, "Foundations," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revision 1, July 1981.
| |
| 3.6 NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 9.1.2, "Spent Fuel Storage," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revision 3, July 1981 ~
| |
| 3.7 OT Position, "Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications,"
| |
| dated April 14, 1978 and the modifications to this document dated January 18, 1979, U.S.
| |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| 3.8 U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.13, "Spent Fuel Storage Facility Design Basis," Revision 1, December 1975 3.9 U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.29, "Seismic Design Classification," Revision 3, September 1978 3.10 U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60, "Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design ofNuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, December 1973.
| |
| 3.11 U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61, "Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 0, October 1973.
| |
| 3.12 U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, "Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," Revision 1, February 1976.
| |
| 3.13 U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.117, "Tornado Design Classification," Revision 1, April 1978.
| |
| 3.14 U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.124, "Service Limits and Loading Combinations for Class I Linear Type Components Supports," Revision 1, January 1978.
| |
| 3.15 U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.142, "Safety-Related Concrete Structures for Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, October 1981.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 325
| |
| | |
| 3.16 NUREG-0612, "Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plant," U. S. NRC, July 1980.
| |
| 3.17 NUREG-0554, "Single-Failure-Proof Cranes for Nuclear Power Plants," U. S. NRC, May 1979.
| |
| 3.18 ANSI-57.2-1983, "Design Requirements for Light Water Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Facilities at Nuclear Power Plants."
| |
| 3.19 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Edition. '989 3.20 ACI 349-85, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures,"
| |
| American Concrete Institute, 1985.
| |
| 3.21 AISC-1989, "Manual of Steel Construction - Part 5, Specification and Codes," American Institute of Steel Construction, 9th Edition, 1989.
| |
| 3.22 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, "Rochester Gas & Electric, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket 50-244" Revision 13-1, July 1996.
| |
| 3.23 NRC - Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Supporting Amendment 12 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-18, Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.,
| |
| R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No 50-244, dated December 16, 1985.
| |
| 3.24 NRC Letter to RG&E - Mr. Kober dated November 14, 1984. Safety Evaluation Report to Amendment No. 65 "Increase of the Spent Fuel Storage Capacity," License No. DPR-18, Docket No. 50-244.
| |
| 3.25 U.S. Tool & Die Inc., " Seismic Analysis Spent Fuel Storage Racks Modified to 100%
| |
| Storage Density in Region 2," Report No. 8369-00-0013," Revision 1, March 1, 1984.
| |
| 3.26 U.S. Tool & Die Inc., "Mechanical Analysis, Spent Fuel Storage Racks Modified to 100%
| |
| Storage Capacity in Region 2," Report No. 8369-00-0014, Revision 2, September 1984.
| |
| 3.27 "Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes," TID-7024, US Atomic Energy Commission, August 1963.
| |
| 3.28 Welding Research Council Bulletin Number 151, "Further Theoretical Treatment of Perforated Plates with Square Penetration Patterns," W. J. O'Donnell, June 1970.
| |
| 3.29 DOE/RW-0184, Characteristic of Spent Fuel, High-Level Waste, and Other Radioactive Waste Which May Require Long Term Isolation," December 1987.
| |
| 3.30 EPRI NP-6159, "An Assessment of Boraflex Performance in Spent-Nuclear-Fuel Storage Racks," Electric Power Research Institute, December 1988.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 326
| |
| | |
| 3.31 EPRI TR-100784, "Borated Stainless Steel Application in Spent Fuel Storage Racks,"
| |
| Electric Power Research Institute, June 1992.
| |
| 3.32 Bechtel Topical Report "Design of Structures For Missile Impact," BC-TOP-9A, Revision 2, September 1974.
| |
| 3.33 Marks Handbook, "Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers," Seventh Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company.
| |
| 3.34 Oberg, E. Et al, "Machinery's Handbook," 23rd Edition, Industrial Press Inc., New York, 1990 3.35 , id ECh i, Ti I N d ~ ii*,hl ~ -Hill ~ Y., 1970.
| |
| 3.36 n 'e 1989, pp. 735 and 751.
| |
| n D i, 5th Edition, Shigley and Mischke, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.,
| |
| 3.37 1 ed tructure O.W. Blodgett, James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation, Cleveland, OH, 1991.
| |
| 3.38 Singh-1990, "Structural Evaluation of Onsite Spent Fuel Storage: Recent Developments,"
| |
| S. Singh, et. Al., Proceedings of the Third Symposium, Orlando, Florida, December 1990.
| |
| North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, pp V/4-1 through V/4-18.
| |
| 3.39 Letter from John E. Maier, RG&E to'Harold R. Denton, USNRC, "Application for Amendment to Operating License," Docket 50-244, January 18, 1984.
| |
| 3.40 ANSYS, Engineering Analyses System User's Manual, Version 5.2, 1995.
| |
| 3.41 SIMQKE - "A Program for ArtificialMotion Generation," Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, November 1976.
| |
| 3.42 1965.
| |
| e'n Fl hV c, E. F. Bruhn, Tri-State Offset Printing, 3.43 ASME Code Case N-510-1, "Borated Stainless Steel for Class CS Core Support Structures and Class 1 Component Supports, Section III, Division 1," December 12, 1994.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Licensing Re-rack Report Page 327
| |
| | |
| 4.0 CRITICALITYEVALUATION
| |
| | |
| ==4.1 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| Region 1 maintains a maximum k,~ ~
| |
| Two regions comprise the spent fuel storage racks for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station.
| |
| s 0.95 for fresh fuel with nominal enrichments up to 5.0 wt% ~'U. This is accomplished by a combination of absorber flux Mps, a checkerboard of fresh and highly burned assemblies, and Integrated Fuel Burnable Absorber (IFBA) credit for &esh assemblies .
| |
| with nominal enrichments above 4.0 wt% ~'U. Region 2 maintains the 0.95 criticality criterion by using fixed absorber plates and burnup credit. This region accommodates nominal initial enrichments up to 5.0 wt% ~'U, with an associated minimum burnup of 47.25 GWd/mtU. Loading curves relating the required burnup to the initial enrichment of the spent fuel assemblies govern placement of spent fuel into either region.
| |
| The KENO V.a Monte Carlo program determines K for both Region 1 and 2 using storage rack models with unborated water at nominal pool temperatures. K includes the sum of the KENO V.a calculated k,ir, the KENO V.a bias, penalties related to fabrication tolerance uncertainties, and statistically combined uncertainties related to these parameters. This sum ensures that K will be less than or equal to 0.95 with a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level. Evaluations of the reactivity effects of abnormal and accident conditions ensure that these conditions also satisfy this criticality criterion under the double continency principle.
| |
| The criticality safety analyses for the Ginna Unit 1 storage racks conform to applicable codes and standards ""'. The results of the analyses show that the combination of fixed absorbers and burnup credit inherent in the designs enables both the Region 1 and Region 2 racks to satisfy the criticality safety criterion, i.e., K s 0.95. A summary of the burnup requirements for loading fuel in either region is provided below. The limiting accident condition is a misplaced assembly in Region 2. The criticality criterion is satisfied for this, and any other abnormal event by a minimum soluble boron concentration in the storage pool coolant of 450 ppm during fuel movement.
| |
| 4.1.1 Region 1 Normal Condition A borated stainless steel rack, Type 3, comprises Region 1. This region accommodates fuel with initial enrichments up to 4.0 wt% ~'U (nominal) for either fresh fuel without IFBA or up to 5.0 wt%
| |
| ~'U (nominal) with appropriate IFBA loadings. Fresh assemblies must be stored in a checkerboard arrangement so that &esh fuel is not directly adjacent to other fresh fuel. The positions adjacent to the fresh fuel, i.e., with flat surfaces facing each other, must be filled with fuel with a burnup appropriate to its initial enrichment, or left empty. The relationship between the burnup and initial enrichment is defined by a burnup versus enrichment, or loading, curve. There is a further physical restriction on fuel assembly loading in Region 1 in addition to the loading curve due to the rack design. As described in Section 1.3.1, lead-in funnels are provided for the cells that accept fresh fuel assemblies. The cells without a funnel may only contain spent fuel. Figure 4.1-1 illustrates the burnup versus initial enrichment loading curve for spent fuel in Region 1. Figure 4.1-3 illustrates allowable loading arrangements for &esh fuel assemblies and spent fuel assemblies with enrichments and burnups in areas A and B of Figure 4.1-1. The burnup requirements, including a 5% burnup
| |
| 'measurement'ncertainty, are tabulated in Table 4.1-1. Table 4.1-3 lists the calculated k,ff values 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 328
| |
| | |
| from the KENO V.a calculation and K which includes all biases and uncertainties for Region 1 for normal conditions. These results are based upon a &esh Westinghouse Optimized Fuel Assembly (OFA) stored adjacent to a Westinghouse Standard assembly. The Westinghouse OFA assembly is most reactive for &esh fuel while the Westinghouse Standard assembly is most reactive for burned fuel satisfying the loading curve for Region 1. Consolidated fuel canisters are also bounded by these assemblies and thus must conform to the same loading curve.
| |
| 4.1.2 Region 2 Normal Condition The tight pitch of the Region 2 cells requires burnup credit and fixed absorbers to satisfy the criterion. Three rack cell configurations comprise Region 2 (see Figure 4.3-1). Type 1 'riticality cells are the Boraflex cells that form Region 2 for the existing license. Two racks of Type 2 cells, containing borated stainless steel (BSS) absorber plates, have been added to increase the capacity of Region 2. The capacity can be increased in the future by the addition of Type 4 racks on the north and south faces of the Type 1 rack configuration, (see Figure 4.3-1). This type also contains BSS absorber plates.
| |
| Figure 4.1-2 shows the burnup versus initial enrichment curves for Region 2, as well as the inventory of fuel as of 06/09/96 in the Ginna storage pool. Figure 4.1-4 illustrates allowable loading arrangements for assemblies with enrichments and burnups in areas A,, AB, and C of Figure 4.1-
| |
| : 2. Table 4.1-2 lists the required burnup values. The central, solid curve is the base curve for storage in Region 2 for all type racks. It is based upon the requirements of the Boraflex rack, Type 1, with an assumed amount of Boraflex degradation/shrinkage. While no significant degradation has been shown, or anticipated, in the Ginna Boraflex racks, a significant margin has been included in this analysis to mitigate effects &om possible degradation/shrinkage in the future. Figure 4.1-2 illustrates that the majority of the fuel currently stored in Region 2 falls above the curve. The dashed upper and lower curves prescribe a checker board pattern of loading burned fuel to accommodate those assemblies that fall below the base curve. Assemblies with burnups above the base curve, A1 and A2 may be placed directly adjacent to each other, i.e., flat surfaces facing each other. Assemblies below the curve in area B shall only be placed adjacent to assemblies &om area Al, or a water hole.
| |
| They shall not be directly adjacent to each other. Assemblies in area C shall be stored either adjacent to water holes or in Region 1. For a nominal 5.0 wt% "'U assembly, the base line requires a minimum burnup of 47.25 GWd/mtU. This includes a 5% uncertainty associated with the measurement of the assembly burnup.
| |
| Table 4.1-4 lists KENO V.a calculated reactivity values for Region 2 normal conditions. These results are for a Westinghouse 14x14 Standard fuel assembly design. This fuel type bounds the other assembly designs at Ginna with acceptable burnups for storage in Region 2. Consolidated containers are also bounded by this design and may be stored in Region 2 governed by the loading curve.
| |
| 4.1.3 Abnormal Conditions The analysis evaluates the abnormal and accident conditions listed below. These conditions are subject to the Double Contingency Principle46 which allows consideration of the soluble boron in the pool water. Allowance for soluble boron mitigates any reactivity increase and allows the storage rack to satisfy the criticality criterion.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 329
| |
| | |
| "1
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| | |
| Abnormal or accident conditions consider several dropped assembly scenarios, misloading an assembly, and seismically induced conditions, Dropped assembly accidents include an assembly dropped on top of the rack (T-bone or shallow drop), outside the rack (side drop), and through a rack cell (deep drop). The misloading accident, i.e., storage of a fuel assembly in violation of the administrative controls, is bounded by assuming the misloaded assembly is fresh with an enrichment of 4 wt%"'U. The bounding accident for Regions 1 and 2 is a misloaded assembly in the Boraflex rack of Region 2. The b,k for this accident is about 0.05. Assuming a soluble boron concentration of 450 ppm in the pool water provides sufficient margin to mitigate any reactivity increases from this, or other, credible accidents.
| |
| ANSUANS-57.2", Section 6.4.2.1.3, lists the credible abnormal occurrences that must be considered for criticality safety analyses. Those listed above reflect the credible accident for the Ginna storage pool, i.e., shallow drop, deep drop, side drop, misloaded assembly, and horizontal movement of racks due to seismic events. The following occurrences specified in ANSI/ANS-57.2 were not considered:
| |
| : 1. Tipping of the storage rack was not analyzed because the Ginna storage rack fits tightly into the pool.
| |
| : 2. A stuck fuel assembly with a crane providing an uplifting force is construed to mean that the assembly hangs up due to contact between the assembly and the rack structural material. The structural analysis of this event indicates no damage to the racks (Section 3.5.3.1.18). Thus, there is no impact on criticality safety.
| |
| The only significant objects that could fall into or on the spent fuel rack other than a fuel assembly is the spent fuel handling bridge and the pool gate. The spent fuel handling bridge is restrained to Seismic Class I rails by Seismic Class I restraints to prevent it from jumping the tracks in the event of an earthquake. Seismic Class I anchors retain the winch mechanism on the fuel handling bridge floor. Redundancy is provided on the gate lifting mechanism to preclude a gate drop accident. Thus, there is no impact on criticality safety.
| |
| No rotating equipment is in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool. Thus, missiles generated by the failure of rotating machinery are not pertinent. Natural phenomena, i.e., a tornado missile, has been analyzed (Section 3.5.3.2.4). There is minimal damage to the top of the storage racks. However, fuel within the rack may be damaged. This damage may cause radiological releases and bowing in the fuel. However, the damage will not have a significant impact on the criticality safety of the storage racks.
| |
| 4.2 ANALYTICALMETHODS This section describes the methods used to ensure the criticality safety of the Ginna storage racks.
| |
| The base analysis methodology employs the SCALE 4.2 code system" with KENO V.a. CASMO-3" supplements SCALE 4.2 for evaluation of tolerance effects and generation of spent fuel isotopics. These methods provide the basis for generating the burnup versus enrichment curves that govern loading of fuel into the storage racks. Integrated into the Region 2 curves is the consideration of Boraflex degradation in rack Type 1. A brief discussion of these items involved in generating the loading curve is provided in this section.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 330
| |
| | |
| 4.2.1 Criticality Analysis Methodology The KENO V.a Monte Carlo progmm calculates the absolute reactivities for the various storage rack configurations. Allanalyses use the revised 44 group cross section set 4'. This cross section set is processed by the CSh.S routines of SCALE 4.2. This system of codes has been verified with extensive in-house benchmarks against critical configurations directly applicable to spent fuel storage pool storage analyses.
| |
| The benchmark cases have been chosen to demonstrate the applicability of the SCALE 4.2 system the 44 group cross section library to spent fuel storage rack analyses. A series of 37 critical 'ith configurations closely modeling storage rack configurations have been analyzed. These experiments span a range of fuel enrichments, assembly/pin spacings, and materials interspersed between the fuel arrays applicable to the Boraflex and BSS racks evaluated in this analysis. Additionally, twelve mixed-oxide critical configurations have been examined to verify calculations for burnup credit, i.e.,
| |
| inclusion of plutonium effects. A description of the benchmark cases and a complete discussion of results is provided in Section 4.4.1.
| |
| The results from the benchmark calculations indicated no discernable trend relative to enrichment, pin pitch, fuel rod size, or fuel composition. However, they do suggest a trend of increasing bias as a function of the spacing between the edges of the fuel arrays. This is further influenced by the materials inserted into the space between the edges. The Region 1 racks have a spacing of about 3.7 cm (1.45") between the edges of fuel assemblies centered in the rack cells. The KENO V.a bias that corresponds to this spacing, including BSS and SS absorber plate effects, is -0.0070 + 0.0009 b,k.
| |
| The edge-to-edge spacing between fuel assemblies in Region 2 is about 1.64 cm (0.646"). The KENO V.a bias associated with this spacing is 0.0056 + 0.0009 hk. As noted in Section 4.4.1, independent benchmark calculations presented in the International Handbook ofEvaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark verify this trend for typical assembly edge-to-edge spacings for tight lattice storage racks.
| |
| 4.2.2 Tolerance Evaluation/Burnup Isotopic Generation with CASMO-3 The analysis considers nominal dimensions for modeling both the storage racks and the fuel assemblies. To ensure a margin of safety, the reactivity effects caused by potential variations from the nominal and/or conditions assumed in the analysis must be factored into the analysis. The CASMO-3 program determines tolerance and moderator temperature effects, as well as, burnup
| |
| 'sotopics. CASMO-3 is a multi group two-dimensional transport theory program developed for burnup calculations on Light Water Reactor (LWR) fuel assemblies or simple pin cells. The code handles a geometry consisting of cylindrical fuel rods of varying composition in an infinite square pitch array. This capability allows the evaluation of fuel assembly type differences, fuel assembly fabrication tolerances, e.g., enrichment, pellet diameters, etc., and rod consolidation effects. Typical fuel-storage-rack modeling capabilities allow evaluation ofrack fabrication tolerances and moderator temperature effects in the storage pool. In addition to its use for sensitivity studies, CASMO-3 provides depletion data for burnup credit evaluations.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 331
| |
| | |
| The application of burnup credit uses reactivity equivalence of fuel assemblies defined in an initial enrichment versus burnup curve. This allows a tighter pitch for storage of fuel assemblies without restrictive limits on enrichment. An alternative application of reactivity equivalencing is the determination of a curve relating initial enrichment versus the number of IFBA rods for an assembly.
| |
| For the Ginna storage racks such a curve is defined for fuel with nominal initial enrichments above 4.0 wt%. Similar to the burnup versus enrichment curve, an assembly IFBA rod versus enrichment curve provides equivalency with an unrodded assembly. CASMO-3 is used to generate this curve for the optimal burnup point for IFBA assemblies to be stored in the Ginna storage racks.
| |
| 4.2.3 Burnup Credit Methodology Typically, a burnup credit analysis applies a uniform, average burnup distribution over the entire length of the assembly. However, a uniform distribution may underestimate the burnup at the center ofthe assembly while overestimating the burnup at the top and bottom. To adequately utilize burnup credit, an estimate of the reactivity effects of the axial burnup distribution relative to a uniform distribution must be determined and appropriately applied to the results. Alternatively, the explicit axial distribution can be modeled in the KENO V.a calculation to remove the need for application of an axial burnup penalty. This analysis uses the latter method and is based upon a best estimate of axial burnup shapes and fueVmoderator temperatures for the Ginna plant.
| |
| The Ginna spent fuel racks contains three primary types of 14x14 fuel assemblies: the Westinghouse Standard, the Exxon Standard, and the Westinghouse OFA assemblies. The latter generally have axial blankets (currently ranging from natural to about 2.6 wt% ~'U) and varying numbers of IFBA rods. The older, Standard assemblies contained neither axial blankets nor IFBA rods. Analytical axial burnup profiles were obtained &om RGE for several OFA and Standard assemblies for various enrichment and burnup ranges. From these shapes, best estimates for the burnup profiles for burnup ranges from 10 to 20, 20 to 30, 30 to 40, and 40 to 50 GWd/mtU were chosen. The 23-node analytical profiles were reduced to seven axial zones: the burnup for the three upper and three lower zones are to top and bottom three nodal points while the central zone represents an average of the 17 central nodal points of the analytical profile. Such a seven zone model has been shown to be a reasonable approximation to more axial nodes'". For each burnup range the seven zone distribution is normalized to 1 to enable generation of an axial shape for an average burnup by a simple multiplicative process.
| |
| CASMO-3 generates the isotopic concentrations for each segment of the axial profile. The segment concentrations are influenced by the axial fuel and moderator temperature distributions that effect the plutonium buildup occurring during depletion. A higher moderator temperature causes spectral "hardening" (a shift of the neutron energy spectrum to higher energy values) which increases conversion of 'Pu &om ~'U. Additionally, higher fuel temperatures cause Doppler broadening of the 'U resonance structure, also increasing ~ Pu production. Typical core average axial moderator and fuel temperature profiles were obtained &om RGE and used in the CASMO-3 depletions for the generation of isotopics for KENO V.a.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 332
| |
| | |
| To reduce the amount of data transfer between CASMO-3 and KENO V.a, only selected actinide isotopes ( 'U n'U mU mPu ~Pu "Pu) ' and equilibrium'" Sm (xenon and iodine are eliminated in both rack models) at shutdown (no decay considered) are explicitly considered in the analysis. The other isotopes are represented by an equivalent 'B concentration. CASMO-3 is used to determine the equivalency. Section 4.4.2 provides an additional description of the methodology and lists the isotopic concentrations for the base calculations.
| |
| The ability of CASMO-3 to predict isotopics has been illustrated by a comparison between CASMO-3 predicted and the measured isotopic values for the YANKEEROWE Power Plant Cores I, II, and IV3.A ' 'he +
| |
| ratio of U, U, ~U, Pu ~ Pu Pu, and Pu to the initial ~ U concentra-tion was compared for the measured and CASMO-3 predicted results. The CASMO-3 predictions were shown to be well within the statistical variations of the measured values. No obser ved bias is seen for any isotope except 'Pu with CASMO-3 consistently under predicting the measured values by about 9%. Since "'Pu is not an important contributor to k, this effect is negligible for this analysis. Based on these results, it is concluded that the uncertainty of CASMO-3 predicted isotopics is bounded by the conservative methodology and the application of a 5.0% burnup uncertainty.
| |
| 4.2.4 Boraflex Degradation/Shrinkage Methodology Recent industry-wide blackness testing ofBorafiex panels at other reactor storage sites has indicated shrinkage and gap formation in the Boraflex absorber sheets. 'Additional industry experience with the material has shown degradation, i.e., loss of the polymer material, in the sheets. The effects of both the degradation and the shrinkage of Boraflex in the Type 1 racks of Region 2 are evaluated and factored into the generation of the loading curves for Region 2.
| |
| The previous licensing report for Region 2 of the Ginna racks '" evaluated the effects of a 4%
| |
| shrinkage and a 4" gap. This was considered a conservative assumption supported by generic studies for rack geometries'". Recent blackness testing at other storage pools has indicated gaps ranging from 9" to 12" in length. Other loss of Boraflex into the spent fuel pool has also been postulated recently. The following assumptions and methodologies are used to evaluate the effects of both of these loss mechanisms on the reactivity of the storage racks:
| |
| Based upon the most recent indication of a 12" gap, an equivalent shrinkage, 8.3% based upon a 144" Boraflex plate, or gap is assumed. For the shrinkage evaluation, it is assumed that the shrinkage is uniform over the length and width of the plate. Thus an equal gap forms at the top and bottom, and at either side of the plate, i.e., 4.15% of the dimension at each edge. No density change is made to the remaining absorber material to reflect the shrinkage.
| |
| KENO V.a evaluates the shrinkage reactivity effects.
| |
| : 2. The gap evaluation examined a single 12" gap over the length of the plate with an 8.3%
| |
| shrinkage over the width. The model assumes that the location of the gap is randomly distributed on each plate ofthe cell. To provide a reasonable model, an array of 16 rack cells is modeled with each of the 32 absorber plates (2 plates per cell) randomly assigned a 12" gap. Appropriate boundary conditions provide an infinite array of this rack. The model assumes a 144" fuel zone with a 144" absorber plate. However, for additional conservatism, the gaps are limited to the central 132 inches of the cells to simulate the most reactive region when axial reflector fuel is used. Water replaces the absorber material in the gap with no 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 333
| |
| | |
| when axial reflector fuel is used. Water replaces the absorber material in the gap with no density modification of the remaining absorber material. The evaluation uses KENO V.a to assess gapping reactivity effects.
| |
| A detailed CASMO-3 model of the Boraflex rack evaluates the reactivity effects of the potential degradation of the absorber material. This degradation model reduces the thickness of the absorber material in the cell. The evaluation examines various degraded configurations to provide a bounding assessment of the effect. These configurations include replacement of the absorber with water, reduction of the density of the absorber material by .
| |
| the assumed boron loss, and a homogeneous mixture of degraded absorber and water in the absorber region. An evaluation of the required boron concentration in the pool water to compensate for varying amounts of degradation is also provided.
| |
| No significant degradation and/or shrinkage is anticipated in the Ginna racks. Indeed, fuel loading practices for Region 2 at Ginna"" should reduce damage to the absorber material. However to address any potential absorber loss, the generation of the loading curve for Region 2 for Rack Type 1 includes allowances for Boraflex degradations. A sixteen cell infinite KENO V.a model with both a 12" gap, including 8.3% shrinkage on the width, and reduction of the absorber thickness by 50%
| |
| provides the geometrical basis for the allowances. Thus, a conservative margin is provided to accommodate a combination ofpotential gapping and degradation beyond that currently experienced in the industry. This is well beyond that expected for the Ginna storage rack.
| |
| 4.3 CRITICALITYANALYSES The spent fuel racks are divided into two administratively controlled regions (see Figure 4.3-1).
| |
| Region 1 is designed to accommodate a full core off-load of assemblies. Thus, it must be able to store assemblies ranging from zero to very high burnups. This region comprises 5 modular racks of a borated stainless steel rack design designated as rack Type 3. Rack Type 3 combines a flux trap with a checkerboard pattern of &esh and burned fuel to insure criticality safety. Region 2 provides the bulk of the storage for burned fuel assemblies. It consists of three rack types: Type 1 is the Boraflex design currently licensed; Type 2 is a &ee standing, BSS absorber plate rack design; Type 4, also a BSS design, is a single row design that may be attached to the north and south faces of the Boraflex rack region for additional storage in the future. Section 1.3 provides a description of the new rack types to be placed in the Ginna storage pool. Figure 1.1-1 illustrates the general arrangement of rack types in the pool.
| |
| Section 4.3.1 describes the base input parameters for all the analyses. Section 4.3.2 describes the evaluation of the reactivity effects due to manufacturing tolerances for the rack and fuel assemblies, as well as uncertainties related to storage of fuel in the racks, i.e., fuel assembly type, fuel assembly position, boraflex degradation/shrinkage, and coolant temperature effect. Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 discuss the analysis for normal conditions for Regions 1 and 2. This is followed by a discussion of the evaluation of the interface effects between rack types in Section 4.3.5. Section 4.3.6 describes the accident condition evaluation. The results of these analyses are discussed in Sections 4.3.7.
| |
| Section 4.3.8 discusses storage of consolidated fuel containers in the storage racks. Finally, Section 4.3.9 relates the results of the analyses to the acceptance criteria for criticality safety.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 334
| |
| | |
| 4.3.1 Input Parameters This section lists the input parameters used in the analysis of the storage racks. This includes fuel assembly dimensions, rack dimensions, and material specifications.
| |
| 4.3.1.1 Fuel Assembly Description Three basic fuel assemblies are stored in the Ginna spent fuel storage racks: Westinghouse Standard assemblies, Exxon Standard assemblies, and Westinghouse OFA assemblies. Table 4.3-1 shows the significant specifications and dimensions for these assemblies. No dimensions are provided for intermediate spacer grids and end fittings since these items are not modeled in the CASMO-3 or V.a calculations. The criticality analysis uses the nominal dimensions of the fuel assembly 'ENO components to determine k,a, Tolerances are evaluated and included in the determination of K that is compared to the 0.95 criticality safety criterion.
| |
| In addition to an intact fuel assembly, the reactivity of consolidation containers containing fuel rods from up to two assemblies is evaluated. Table 4.3-2 provides information on the structure of the consolidated containers.
| |
| 4.3.1.2 Spent Fuel Storage Rack Dimensions A sketch of the Ginna storage rack is provided in Figure 4.3-1 . This shows the arrangements of the various rack types to form Regions 1 and 2. Region 1 consists of five modules, or racks, of rack Type 3. Rack 3E contains five cells with the cell internal dimension enlarged to accommodate severely bowed or damaged fuel assemblies. Tables 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b provide the dimensions significant to the criticality analysis. As illustrated in Figure 4.3-1, Region 2 initiallywillbe formed with rack Type 1, the existing Boraflex racks, and Type 2 racks 2A and 2B. Analysis is also provided for peripheral racks, Type 4, that may be added to the north and south faces of rack Type 1 (see Figure 4.3-1). Type 4 racks will be added ifadditional storage is required in the future. The significant dimensions for these rack types are provided in Tables 4.3-4 through 4.3-6. These tables form the bases for the analytical models described in a later section. Nominal values are used primarily in the evaluation of k,ii and the effects of tolerances are included to determine K 4.3.1.3 Material Specifications Tables 4.3-7 and 4.3-8 provide the region material compositions and number densities used in the models. The first table lists the non-fuel materials. The second table provides the fuel number densities for the analyzed fresh fuel enrichments and the burnup isotopics for fuel with an initial enrichment of 5 wt% ~'U burned to 45 GWd/mtU, the upper point for the burnup versus enrichment curves. Section 4.4.2 contains the isotopic number densities for other initial enrichments and limiting burnups used in the analysis.
| |
| 4.3.2 Tolerance/Uncertainty Evaluation The fuel rack tolerance results are described in Section 4.3.2.1. Section 4.3.2.2 describes penalties associated with off-center fuel placement while an evaluation of the coolant temperature effect on rack reactivity is provided in Section 4.3.2.3. Tolerance penalties associated with the fuel assembly design, enrichment, and theoretical density are described in Section 4.3.2.4. Section 4.3.2.5 discusses 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 335
| |
| | |
| 0 l
| |
| | |
| the reactivity differences among the three fuel assembly types. A summary of the tolerances, uncertainties, and biases applied to the KENO V.a results is provided in Section 4.3.2.6. Table 4.3-12 summarizes the tolerance, uncertainty, and bias values from this evaluation. Additionally, the KENO V.a bias, discussed in Section 4.4.1, is included in this table for completeness.
| |
| 4.3.2.1 Fuel Rack Tolerance Analysis Methodology The tolerance penalties associated with the different rack designs are obtained with the CASMO-3 computer code. Rack Types 2, 3, and, specifically, the cells for damaged fuel assemblies in rack 3E are evaluated using a model of 4 rack cells in CASMO-3. Periodic boundary conditions are used to an infinite rack model. These models closely approximate the rack configurations sketched 'rovide in Figures 4.3-2 and 4.3-6. Such models are necessary to evaluate the alternating cell types in these.
| |
| Rack Type 1 is modeled as an infinite array of Borafiex cells (Figure 4.3-5). The Type 4 rack evaluation diverges from that of the others. Since it is only one cell wide, it is modeled as infinite in one direction. Due to the large water gaps between the Type 4 racks, the pool wall, and the Type 1 racks (Figure 4.3-1), geometry limitations in CASMO-3 preclude either including the Type 1 racks or the pool wall in the model. However, since the primary contribution to the tolerance penalty, as observed for the other rack types, is the water gap between the Type 4 cells, modeling only the Type 4 rack is sufficient and provides a relatively small tolerance penalty. The bounding tolerances for each rack type are listed in Table 4.3-12. Note that the damaged cells of rack 3E (Figure 4.3-4) will be not be distinguished from the other Type 3 cells since they are more limiting and only a limited number of Type 3E cells are placed along the outer edge rack 3E.
| |
| 4.3.2.2 Off-Center Fuel Assembly Analysis The off-'center study evaluates the reactivity effects of fuel assembly movement within the rack cell by placing assemblies in a corner of the cell. This results in an uneven distribution of water between the outer edge of the assembly and the can and places assemblies closer together which may increase reactivity. Due to limitations in CASMO-3, the assemblies can only be arranged in groups of four (except for rack Type 4). Larger off-'center groupings require the use of KENO V.a for evaluation.
| |
| Based on previous calculations with KENO V.a and CASMO-3 the reactivity effect &om off-center assembly spacing is not significant. This is illustrated in the listing the off-'center penalty for each rack type in Table 4.3-12.
| |
| 4.3.2.3 Storage Pool Coolant Temperature Effects The rack analyses were performed for a nominal pool temperature of 68 'F (293 'K). An evaluation of the reactivity changes associated with temperature variations around this nominal value was performed with CASMO-3. The evaluation examined the temperature range from 50 to 212 'F to cover both credible 'cooldown'nd 'heatup'vents in the spent fuel pool. The reactivity increases from about 0.001 to 0.002 hk as the temperature is lowered from 68 'F to 50 'F, depending upon rack type, see Table 4.3-12. For all rack types the reactivity decreases as the pool temperature is raised. For this evaluation, pool temperature decreases to about 50 'F are considered credible so a penalty is taken only for the b,k increase from 68 to 50 'F. Pool temperatures below 50 'F are not considered credible and represent an accident condition covered by the double contingency principle.
| |
| For temperatures below 50 'F, the reactivity change is less than+0.0002 LHc for any rack type. Such small reactivity changes are easily covered by the effect of the 450 ppm minimum boron concentration in the pool water.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 336
| |
| | |
| 4.3.2.4 Fuel Assembly Mechanical Tolerances This section addresses the reactivity effects due to manufacturing tolerances on the various dimensions ofthe 14x14 pin fuel assembly types. The major assembly types are the Exxon Standard, the Westinghouse Standard, and the Westinghouse OFA fuel assembly. The variables examined are dimensional changes of the fuel pellet diameter, the pellet cladding ID and OD, the guide tube and instrument tube ID and OD values, the fuel theoretical density, and the enrichment. These penalties are determined with the CASMO-3 code. Bounding penalties are obtained for assembly component parts by varying the component dimension over the allowable tolerance range. The statistically combined tolerance penalty for the fuel pellet, guide tube, instrument tube, and fuel cladding is .
| |
| reported for convenience for each assembly. The fuel pellet enrichment and theoretical density penalties reported separately to illustrate that the enrichments reported for the loading requirements are indeed nominal values. Table 4.3-9 provides a listing of the fuel assembly tolerance penalties.
| |
| The Exxon assembly is seen to have the largest tolerance penalty for both manufacturing and enrichment variations while the Westinghouse OFA assembly shows the largest penalty related to the variation in theoretical density. A statistical combination of the individual results shows that the Exxon assembly penalty bounds the other assemblies. Thus, the penalty for this assembly is used in the determination of K and incorporated into the summary Table 4.3-12 4.3.2.5 Most Reactive Fuel Type Three basic types of intact fuel plus twelve lead test assemblies are stored in the Ginna rack. In addition to the intact assemblies, there are several consolidated fuel containers currently in the rack.
| |
| Thus, the evaluation of the reactivity of different fuel types logically is divided into two areas: intact fuel and consolidated fuel. The evaluation of these fuel types is discussed in this section.
| |
| 4.3.2.5.1 Intact Fuel Assemblies A CASMO-3 evaluation of the reactivity of each fuel assembly in a rack type configuration is performed for the two types of Westinghouse assemblies and the Exxon assembly. Table 4.3-10 lists the reactivity differences between the assemblies as a function of burnup for an infinite array of rack Type 1 cells. The Westinghouse OFA assembly is seen to be the most reactive for fresh fuel for normal reactor enrichments, while the Westinghouse Standard assembly is the most reactive for fuel with burnups above about 12 GWd/mtU. The Exxon assembly is bounded by the two Westinghouse assemblies. A separate study for low enrichments, i.e., about 1.95 wt%, showed the Westinghouse Standard assembly to be most reactive even when mesh (the enrichment is similar to that for burned assemblies). These results were factored into the final KENO V.a rack analyses to provide the most reactive conditions by appropriate use of the most reactive fuel in the models. Thus, no penalty is required to correct for fuel assembly type.
| |
| In addition to the three basic types of fuel assemblies, 12 Lead Test Assemblies are also stored in the spent fuel rack. They are two each of B&Wand Exxon Standard assembly designs, four Exxon Annular Pellet designs, and four Westinghouse Standard mixed-oxide designs. CASMO-3 evaluations of these assemblies showed that their reactivities are bounded by that of the Westinghouse Standard assembly. Thus, they are subject to the same restrictions as the Westinghouse Standard assembly.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 337
| |
| | |
| y 4.3.2.5.2 Consolidated Fuel Containers KENO V.a is used to evaluate the reactivity of the consolidation containers for both normal and abnormal conditions. For the normal condition, an evaluation is made of the intact containers in the storage racks. The evaluation examines &esh fuel enrichments of 1.6 and 2.22 wt% "'U at storage pool temperatures, -68'F, for each major type fuel assembly. The container model includes only the outer walls of the container with dimensions bounded by Table 4.3-2. The reactivity worth of the inner plate is also assessed in the evaluation. The reactivity of the container is optimized with a series of cases varying both the number of pins and the pin pitch. The evaluation examines storage of only consolidation containers in a rack or a combination of intact fuel assemblies and containers.
| |
| The accident case considers a loss of containment of the container that allows the fuel pins to spill into the storage pool. For convenience, a 19x19 array of pins (361) is examined (3 more than available in a full container). The pitch of the array is optimized to provide a bounding accident condition. In addition the effect of the minimum concentration of soluble boron in the pool water, 450 ppm, is determined. This evaluation, for both the normal and abnormal conditions, ensure that the storage of consolidation canisters satisfies the criticality safety criterion for both full and partially filled containers.
| |
| 4.3.2.6 Summary of Biases, Penalties, and Uncertainties in Analysis The calculated k,ir from KENO V.a results must be adjusted to account for methodology bias and, penalties and uncertainties associated with differences between the calculational model and variations in key parameters of the model. The methodology bias is discussed in Section 4.2.1.
| |
| Manufacturing tolerance uncertainties and penalties are discussed in Section 4.3.2, as are other uncertainties associated with the choice of parameters factored into the models. These biases, penalties, and uncertainties are summarized in Table 4.3-12 for the four rack types. An additional uncertainty relative to the self shielding of "B in Boraflex"" is also included in the rack Type 1 summary. The last row lists the approximate adjustment factor to obtain K obtained from the additive and statistical combinations of these values. An estimate of the projected calculational uncertainty based upon one million neutron histories, 0.0007, is assumed to obtain this factor.
| |
| 4.3.3 Region 1 Analysis Region 1 (rack Type 3) stores spent and &esh fuel in a checkerboard pattern. All interior Region 1 cells are formed by four borated stainless steel sheets (see Section 1.3.1 for a detailed description).
| |
| Each cell containing a spent assembly also contains a stainless steel casing which surrounds the borated stainless steel plates. Table 4.3-3a lists the dimensions of the rack cell that are explicitly modeled with KENO V.a. Based upon the evaluations for the most reactive assembly (Section 4.3.2.5), a Westinghouse. OFA assembly represents the bounding fresh assembly while a Westinghouse Standard bounds the spent assemblies. A discussion of the geometrical model and the burnup credit methodology for Region 1 is provided in this section.
| |
| 4.3.3.1 Region 1 Geometry Models The base KENO V.a model represents an infinite rack array in the x-y plane. The axial dimension includes an active fuel length of 144" (365.76 cm) with a 12" (30.48 cm) top and bottom water refiector. The structure of the cells, four BSS rack cells (two with and two without the SS casings),
| |
| are explicitly modeled in the x-y plane. Periodic boundary conditions on the outer faces of the four combined cell models generate an infinite x-y array of Region 1 cells. Figure 4.3-2 illustrates the base model with two fresh OFA assemblies and two spent Standard assemblies. The axial 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 338
| |
| | |
| t representation of the infinite model is shown in Figure 4.3-3. Note that this rack has lead-in funnels in the cells without SS casings to facilitate loading of off-loaded fuel. Fresh fuel must only be placed in these cells, not in those with SS casings (and without lead-in funnels) and are so modeled.
| |
| Reversing the positions increases the reactivity of this region by about 0.2% b k.
| |
| 4.3.3.2 Burnup Credit The application of burnup credit requires more calculations than the typical mesh fuel analysis. The reactivity effect of the following items must be evaluated and factored into the analysis:
| |
| Operating history including fuel and moderator temperature, Axial burnup distributions as a function of burnup, and Measured burnup uncertainty.
| |
| These items contribute to the residual reactivity of the burned fuel, especially for the axial distribution. For a Region 2 type rack which contains burned fuel adjacent to burned fuel, consideration of the axial burnup distribution is necessary to adequately define the loading curve.
| |
| However, for a checkerboard of &esh and burned fuel, the fresh fuel completely dominates the system's reactivity. Thus, consideration of a uniform average burnup shape for the checker boarded spent fuel is all that is required. This is illustrated in Section 4.4.2.
| |
| The following methodology describes the steps to calculate the burnup versus enrichment curve for Region 1. A CASMO-3 hot-full-power depletion with core average fuel and moderator temperatures is performed to determine the isotopic concentrations for the average burnup of an assembly. A second CASMO-3 calculation provides the base k;, for a fuel assembly with all isotopes for rack temperature conditions (note that xenon and iodine are removed) at shutdown. A third CASMO-3 rack model calculates the k;~with only the shutdown fuel pin concentrations of "0, ~'U, 'U, "'U,
| |
| ~'Pu, "'Pu, "'Pu, and '"Sm (xenon and iodine are eliminated in both models). A small amount of "B is added to the fuel pin until the k;from the second CASMO-3 calculation agrees with that of the first. In this manner, the added ' simulates the neutron absorption of the isotopes not present in the KENO V.a model. These concentrations are inserted in the KENO V.a model and k,a.
| |
| calculated. Ifthe k,~ is not satisfactory, the burnup is changed and the entire process repeated until a target K of about 0.94 is obtained. This is then repeated for additional enrichment values. The burnup/enrichment pairs provide the points to define a polynomial fit to the burnup versus enrichment curve of Figure 4.1-1 that generates the values in Table 4.1-1. Based upon the conservatism inherent in the model and the penalties applied, the proximity to the 0.95 criticality limit is justified.
| |
| 4.3.4 Region 2 Analysis Region 2 consists of rack Types 1, 2, and 4. Type 1 is the existing Boraflex rack which contain 840 cells in a 30 x 28 array. The Type 2 racks (see Figure 1.1-1) consist of two borated stainless steel (BSS) racks, rack 2A (8 x 11 array) and rack 2B (9 x 11 array). Type 4 racks consist of six individual racks of 10 cells each (Figure 1.3-13) and are attached to North and South faces of the Type 1 racks. An infinite model of each of the Types 1 and 2 racks provides the evaluation for these racks. The single row dimension, and positioning of the Type 4 rack preclude an individual analysis of this rack. The evaluation for this rack is combined into a model containing both rack Types 1 aild 2.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 339
| |
| | |
| 5 8 w P k
| |
| | |
| 4.3.4.1 Region 2 Geometry Models Individual infinite (in x-y plane) rack models are used for rack Types 1 and 2. The evaluation of Type 4 requires consideration of interactions with Type 1 to adequately evaluate the reactivity of this rack type. Since a combination of rack types is required, a model is developed that examines all the Region 2 rack types together for the evaluation of Type 4. In all cases, the use of the Westinghouse Standard assembly provides bounding results for spent fuel in this region.
| |
| 4.3.4.1.1 Rack Type 1 - Boraflex Rack The Boraflex rack contains only a single cell configuration. A model of this cell was created and combined into a multi-cell array with periodic boundary conditions to create an infinite array in x-y extent (see Figure 4.3-5). The axial model is similar to that for Region 1, as illustrated in Figure 4.3-
| |
| : 3. The nominal dimensions listed in Table 4.3-4 were used in the explicit model of this rack. As noted in Section 4.2.4 a significant amount of Boraflex degradation is included in the model. The model contains a 16x16 array of cells with Boraflex panels each containing a randomly distributed 12" axial gap, a 8% width shrinkage, and a 50% reduction in the plate thickness. A nominal rack model without degradation provides a measure of the reactivity change obtained &om this degraded model.
| |
| 4.3.4.1.2 Rack Type 2 - Borated Stainless Steel Rack The BSS racks contain two cell types. One type is manufactured Rom 3 mm, borated stainless-steel plates (SS304 B7), and the other consists of a 2 mm, unborated stainless-steel can (SS304L). Figures 1.3-8 and 1.3-12 provide illustrative drawings for this rack type. The two basic cells are fabricated into a checkerboard pattern with a nominal 2.32 mm water gap located between cells in the x-y directions. The model of the 2x2 array of the two different cells uses a periodic boundary condition to create an infinite array in the x-y plane (see Figure 4.3-6).
| |
| 4.3.4.1.3 Region 2 Combined Model for Rack Type 4 Evaluation Rack Type 4 (Figure 1.3-13) is similar in design to rack Type 2. However, there are some notable differences. This type consists of only a single row of cells with a relatively large water gap between rack Type 4 and either rack Type 1 or the pool wall (see Figure 1.1-1). The large water gaps allows the absorber cells to be fabricated with BSS plates only between adjacent Type 4 cells, i.e., in the east-west direction. Based on the single row configuration, this type can be adequately analyzed only in combination with the adjacent Type 1 rack. A combined model was developed for the interface effect evaluations (Section 4.3.5) for Types 1, 2 and 4, i.e., the south face of Type 1 (see Figure 4.3-7). It was used for the evaluation of this rack. The south face of Type 1 was chosen since this face does not contain Boraflex. This lack of Boraflex facing the Type 4 rack makes this more reactive than the north face. Inclusion of Type 2 allows a good assessment of the total reactivity of Region 2.
| |
| The base interface model is described in Section 4.3.5. Modifications to this model were made to implement the degraded Boraflex model into the Type 1 model. Thus, a bounding, geometrical model of Region 2 is contained in this evaluation.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 340
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| V
| |
| | |
| 4.3.4.2 Region 2 Loading Curve Generation As mentioned above for Region 1, the application of burnup credit requires several basic calculational steps: 1) determine appropriate axial power shapes as a function of burnup, 2) determine axial intervals to be modeled, and generate burnup isotopics and cross sections for these burnup intervals, 3) integrate operating history data into the model directly or through appropriate penalties to be applied to the final results, and 4) iterate on burnup for a series of enrichments to develop an acceptable burnup versus enrichment curve for the storage rack design. For a rack containing completely burned fuel axial effects are significant and must be assessed. This section provides a brief description of the methodology for the burnup credit analysis. Details for these steps are provided in Section 4.4.2. This methodology for burnup credit is very similar to that accepted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission4.I0,4.is,4.>6 4.3.4.2.1 Base Burnup vs Enrichment Curve Generation Generation of the burnup versus enrichment curve includes consideration of axial burnup effects and fuel irradiation conditions. This information is used to obtain the isotopic concentrations of the burned fuel for the analysis. A brief description of this process is provided in this section.
| |
| Axial profiles are determined for selected average burnup values from three dimensional fuel cycle design data for the Ginna reactor. These profiles are then collapsed into the seven axial segments used in the KENO V.a model. The top and bottom three segments are exactly the same burnups, and spacings, of the 3D fuel cycle design calculations. The center burnup segment is adjusted to balance the average assembly burnup to the desired burnup value when weighted with the burnups at the ends of the assembly. Previous studies have shown that the seven axial zone model provides results equivalent to a 15 axial segment model'" which nearly duplicates the nodes in the fuel cycle design analysis.
| |
| A CASMO-3 hot-full-power depletion is performed to determine the isotopic concentrations in each axial segment at the appropriate burnup and fuel and moderator temperature. A second CASMO-3 calculation provides the base k;~ for a fuel assembly with all isotopes for the rack temperature condition at shutdown. A third CASMO-3 rack model calculates the ~with only the shutdown fuel pin concentrations of '60 nsU, + U, + U, + Pu, Pu, 'Pu, and 'm (xenon and iodine are eliminated in both rack CASMO-2 calculation). A small amount of ' is added to the fuel pin until the second CASMO-3 k;~agrees with the first. In this manner, the added "B simulates the neutron absorption of the isotopes not present in the KENO V.a model. To generate the curve, an iteration process is used to determine the minimum burnup to give a target k,ff, about 0.94 for this case. If for the initial burnup, the KENO V.a is not satisfactory, the burnup is changed, and the entire process repeated for a given burnup profile. This method is repeated for several enrichments to obtain the burnup/enrichment pairs for the loading curve in Figure 4.1-2 . A polynomial is fit to the burnup versus enrichment curve ofFigure 4.1-2 to allow generation ofthe points in Table 4.1-2. Based upon the conservatism inherent in the model, the use of bounding axial profiles, and the penalties applied, the proximity to the 0.95 criticality limit is justified.
| |
| 4.3.4.3 Generation of the Loading Curve for Abnormal Assemblies Figure 4.1-2 defines the burnup versus enrichment requirements for the Region 2 storage racks. Fuel located above the base curve, areas Al and A2, can be loaded anywhere in Region 2 next to fuel with burnups above the base line. Most of the burned fuel assemblies currently residing in the racks 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 341
| |
| | |
| 0 (diamonds in Figure 4.1-2 ) fall in areas Al or A2. To allow flexibility,and to preclude fillingthe Region 1 rack with lower burned assemblies, evaluations are made to determine the administrative controls to load fuel assemblies falling below the curve in Figure 4.1-2. These evaluations examine two classes of fuel assemblies below the base curve: those with average burnup within a specified burnup range below the burnup versus enrichment curve limit, area B, and those with burnup below this range, area C.
| |
| The analysis develops secondary curves to allow storage of those assemblies with burnups (Figure 4.1-2 ) up to about 15% below the normal curve, defined as area B. Following the above procedure for the normal curve, an administrative loading scheme is developed that relies on the two secondary curves in Figure 4.1-2 (the upper and lower boundary lines). The intercept of the polynomial fit to the base curve is adjusted to fit a burnup point 10% below the base curve at 5.0 wt% "'U nominal enrichment. This value is further reduced 5% to account for measured burnup uncertainty to give a total value of (0.9)(0.95) = 0.855 below the 5.0 wt% enrichment curve value. This curve has the same slope as the base curve. Based upon this lower curve, CASMO-3 rack calculations generate the upper boundary polynomial line. This is done with a rack model containing four cells that checker board the lower line fuel with estimated values on the upper line for 5.0 wt% "'U fuel. The burnup for the upper line is adjusted until the k;, of the model equals that for the base line. Once the burnup is defined, the intercept of the base line polynomial is adjusted to fitthis point. Thus, the upper curve also has the same slope as the base curve. It is noted that for lower burnups, the burnups in area B may be significantly lower than 10% of the nominal curve. The above calculations define a checker-board loading scheme. Area B assemblies with burnups above the lower burnup boundary must be loaded directly adjacent (in a checker board pattern) to area Al assemblies with burnups above the upper burnup boundary line. Another acceptable loading pattern for these fuel assemblies is alternating rows of A1 and B assemblies. Ifthe B fuel is placed on the outside edge of a rack near the pool wall, A1 fuel must be placed directly adjacent to it in the rack. KENO V.a calculations at several enrichments verify the validity of the additional curves.
| |
| Fuel with burnups and enrichments below the lower boundary line, designated area C fuel, require an alternate loading scheme for storage in the Region 2 fuel racks. The limiting area C fuel assembly is fresh fuel at a nominal enrichment of 4.0 wt% ~'U. A KENO V.a calculation for this condition uses two 4.0 wt% "'U fresh fuel assemblies diagonally opposite each other in a checker board pattern with two water locations (no assemblies). Thus, the use of water holes adjacent to fuel will satisfy the loading criteria for any enrichment/burnup combination. This arrangement may be used in place of storing fuel below the line in Region 1.
| |
| 4.3.5 Interface Effects The interaction between Regions 1 and 2, i.e., interface effects, is also examined, as well as that between the Boraflex racks and BSS racks in Region 2. Three areas of the racks in the pool were modeled to assess these effects. The areas of interest as shown in Figure 4.3-7 are:
| |
| : 1. Interfaces between (1) racks 3C and 2B and (2) racks 2B and 3E.
| |
| : 2. Interfaces between racks 1, 4F, and 3A.
| |
| : 3. Interfaces between racks 1, 4C, and 2A.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 342
| |
| | |
| Figures 4.3-8, 4.3-9, and 4.3-10 show sketches of each model. The same KENO V.a geometry models were identical for the examination of the 2B/3C interface and the 2B/3E interface. The only difference was the position of a spike in the neutron starting distributions at the interface of interest.
| |
| A similar start type application was applied to models 2 and 3 listed above for the other interfaces.
| |
| In each model, sufficient concrete, 19.7" (50 cm), and water, 12" (30.48cm) is modeled to adequately represent reflective surfaces.
| |
| 4.3.6 Accident Analysis The accident analyses examine the following assembly drop conditions for each region: an assembly dropped horizontally on top of rack Types 2 and 3 and an assembly dropped vertically beside racks 2B and 3E. For both Regions 1 and 2, the effect of a misplaced assembly was also examined to ensure criticality safety. For a seismic event, the reduction in the rack Types 2 and 3 rack-to-rack separation distance was examined. These accidents are extremely improbable, and any associated reactivity increase can be mitigated by the soluble boron in the pool water. As part of this analysis, the reactivity effect of the soluble boron in the water was evaluated to determine the reactivity margins for the accident conditions.
| |
| The KENO V.a accident models are based on the infinite, or finite base models for both regions.
| |
| Only modifications necessary to describe the accident condition are made to the base models. This allows assessment of the impact of the accident by examining the reactivity difference between the results from normal and accident models.
| |
| 4.3.6.1 Region 1 Assembly Drop Analyses Region 1 assembly drop analyses include the T-bone (shallow drop), side drop, and deep drop accidents. The following paragraphs describe the models for each accident.
| |
| The T-bone accident is a class of shallow-drop accidents in which the dropped assembly is assumed to lay horizontally atop the rack (see Figure 4.3-11). The dropped assembly is represented as a full assembly in both the x and y directions. Periodic boundary conditions on the right and bottom faces approximate a dropped assembly at the center of a 24 x 24 cell rack region. The rack deformation from the dropped assembly is negligible (Section 3.5.3.2.3.2.1). However, for conservatism, the model places the dropped assembly in direct contact with the top of the active fuel region of the assemblies in the rack, i.e., the upper nozzles are neglected. This provides a bounding accident scenario. For a reference case the same model is used with the dropped assembly replaced with water. The difference between the k,ff of the accident and the reference case provides the reactivity increase of the accident.
| |
| The T-bone model bounds the other shallow-drop accident, the vertical drop, in which the dropped assembly falls into a storage space and impacts upon the top of a stored assembly but remains vertically above the assembly. Since the upper and lower endfitting dimensions will maintain at least a 4" (10.16 cm) gap between the active fuel regions, the accident is less reactive than the modeled T-bone accident. Any reactivity effects &om the minor bowing that may result in the stored assembly due to the impact will be negligible relative to the margin obtained from the soluble boron in the pool water.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 343
| |
| | |
| I The Region 1 side-drop model required modification to the rack Type 3 finite model (Figure 4.3-4) in that the southwest corner cell of rack 3E was removed and replaced with a &esh assembly immediately next to racks 3E and 2B (see Figure 4.3-12). This configuration is not considered possible, but is used for conservatism. This is the only location that exists where an assembly can be vertically dropped and have fuel on two adjacent faces without an absorber material between the dropped assembly and those in the racks. Based upon this consideration it is also the most reactive configuration for a side drop accident. A second case with the dropped assembly replaced with water provides the base case for determination of the reactivity increase due to the accident.
| |
| The deep-drop accident considers a fuel assembly dropped into a rack cell (see Figure 4.3-13). The assembly is assumed to impact the bottom plate of the rack which is supported by pads on about 37" (94 cm) centers. It is assumed that an assembly drops at the center of a section and deforms the rack base plate to the maximum determined from the structural analyses, 2.12" (Section 3.5.3.2.3.1.1).
| |
| Thus, the drop causes a concave depression in the plate, with assemblies positioned along the curved surface, Figure 4.3-13. Due to the complexity of explicitly modeling the accident condition, a bounding analysis is used. The analysis assumed all fuel assemblies in the rack were displaced 3.2" (8.13 cm) below the bottom of the rack. The hk from a base model is determined as well as the minimum boron concentration pool water needed to reduce the system below the 0.95 limit. Note that due to the similarity in construction of rack Types 2, 3, and 4, the results from the Type 3 rack bounds those from Types 2 and 4.
| |
| The misplaced assembly accident assumes that during loading an assembly is placed in a location that violates the loading curve requirements. The accident model assumes that a fresh 4.0 wt% "U fuel assembly is placed into a spent rack location between four &esh assemblies (see Figure 4.3-14) in the Region 1 finite model. The model focuses the neutron starting distribution into the misplaced assembly to ensure that the assembly is adequately sampled. The result of this model is then compared with that of the normal condition, finite model to assess the b,k effect of the misplaced assembly.
| |
| 4.3.6.2 Region 2 Assembly Drop Analyses Four accidents were examined for the Region 2 racks: the T-bone on rack Type 2, side drop, misplaced assembly, and deep drop into a storage cell. The accident models assumed that the rack contained the highest allowable &esh fuel enrichment. The dropped assembly is assumed to be fresh 4.0 wt% 'U fuel. The use of the maximum enrichment provides a bounding accident analysis with respect to fuel loadings.
| |
| The model for the Region 2 T-bone accident is similar to that for Region 1. For Region 2, rack Type 2 was used for the accident model since in a normal condition it is slightly more reactive that Type
| |
| : 1. Figure 4.3-11 provides a sketch of the model with the dropped assembly laying horizontally across the top of the rack. The b,k is determined from the results from cases with and without the dropped assembly.
| |
| The side-drop accident for Region 2 has already been considered in that used for Region 1. The dropped assembly is positioned adjacent to rack Type 3 of Region 1 and Type 2 of Region 2 (Figure 4.3-12). As noted in the discussion for the Region 1 accident, this is a bounding analysis and an individual assessment for the other rack types of Region 2 is unnecessary. Ifrack Type 4 is installed 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 344
| |
| | |
| 0
| |
| 'll q
| |
| ?,"<<.-
| |
| | |
| in the pool (Figure 4.3-1), there is insufficient space to place an assembly between the rack and the pool wall. However, prior to its installation, there is sufficient room for a dropped assembly to lodge between the wall and rack Type 1. This again is bounded by the analysis for the dropped assembly located in the corner of Types 2 and 3. The worst case for rack Type 1 is a drop on the south side of the array which does not contain Boraflex on the outer surface. This is equivalent to the assembly dropped adjacent to the Type 2 rack cell which also does not contain BSS-. Thus, only a single layer of stainless steel separates the assemblies. The stainless steel in the Type 1 rack is about 0.01" (0.0254 cm) thicker than the Type 2. Due to the mild absorption of the stainless steel, this will reduce the effect of the drop in the Type 1 rack. In addition, based upon the results from the Type 2 and 3 side drop (Table 4.3-13), the effect is minimal and a low level of soluble boron reduces maintains k,~ within acceptable limits.
| |
| A misplaced assembly model was created for rack Types 1 and 2 similar to that for Region 1. In each model a 4.0 wt% ~'U fuel assembly is placed either into the Boraflex cell of rack Type 1 (see Figure 4.3-15), or into the stainless steel cell of rack Type 2. The misplaced assembly is placed in a location to provide a bounding reactivity increase. Both models focus the starting neutrons into the misplaced assembly. The Boraflex rack model includes Boraflex degradation and assumes that the misplaced assembly is placed in the most reactive checker board location of spent fuel assemblies. The model assumes an infinite array of 144 cells with a 4 wt% ~'U OFA assembly near the center of the array. The results of these models are then compared with those of the finite geometry models to assess the hk effect of the misplaced assembly.
| |
| The deformation due to the deep drop accident for rack Types 2 and 4 is equivalent to that for rack Type 3 (Figure 4.3-13). Thus, they, are covered by that analysis. Rack Type 1 has been fabricated differently &om the Type 2, 3, and 4 racks. Rather than a single base plate across the bottom of each rack, individual plates are welded at the bottom of each cell to support the fuel assembly. Thus, under the hypothetical drop accident (Figure 4.3-16), it is assumed that the bottom welds break. This willallow a maximum of 14" (35.56 cm) of the assembly to be exposed below the rack. Due to the unique construction of each cell, there is no damage, or deformation, in surrounding cells. Two types of fuel assemblies can be considered for this accident. For a spent assembly that can be stored in the cell in which it is dropped, the post accident condition is equivalent to a partially inserted assembly during loading and results in no impact on criticality safety. Similarly for a fresh 4.0 wt%
| |
| ~'U fuel assembly, this accident is bounded by the misplaced assembly accident. The portion of the dropped assembly in the cell is equivalent to a misplaced assembly and is bounded by that evaluation. The 14" (35.56 cm) displacement below the rack is equivalent the portion of an assembly that protrudes &om the rack during insertion. This portion is essentially isolated from the assemblies in the rack and thus does not affect the reactivity of the rack. Thus, since this accident condition is bounded by the misplaced assembly accident; the minimum soluble boron concentration in the pool is sufficient to offset any reactivity increase.
| |
| 4.3.6.3 Seismic Analysis The structural analysis for the seismic accident indicates that there will be no impacts between adjacent racks or between the racks and the pool walls (Section 3.5.3.1.14). Thus, there is no mechanism for significant permanent rack deformations in either rack region . The analysis shows that during the worst seismic event, the gaps between the racks will always be greater than 0.071" (0.18 cm), see Table 3.5-137 and 3.5-138 column labeled 'Final Gap Between Racks'. This includes 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 345
| |
| | |
| r both lateral movement and momentary swaying of the rack during the seismic event. Thus, there is
| |
| 'no physical contact between adjacent racks. Based upon these results, an evaluation of the reactivity effect of rack movement was made for Regions 1 and 2 and for the interfaces between these regions.
| |
| The specific models for the seismic events are discussed below.
| |
| 4.3.6.3.1 Region 1 Seismic Analysis The Region 1 based plates normally are spaced 0.79" (2.0 cm) apart (see Figure 3.5-36),
| |
| approximately maintaining the rack cell pitch. For the seismic analysis, it is assumed that each rack Type 3 base plate touches that of the adjacent rack. The geometry model for the Region 1 seismic model is identical to Region 1 interface model sketched in Figure 4.3-7, except that the nominal water gaps between the base plates are reduced to zero width, i.e. the base plates are touching. The b,k effect ofthe Region 1 seismic event is determined from the difference between the nominal water gap model and the model without water gaps between the base plates.
| |
| 4.3.6.3.2 Region 2 Seismic Analysis As in Region 1, the seismic event may cause the free standing Region 2 racks to shiA, one relative to the other, such that the base plates may touch each other. This accident has no effect on the current criticality analysis, since an infinite array of cells is considered without inter-rack spacings.
| |
| Thus, the base model is identical to a seismic model. So even ifthe racks move directly adjacent to each other or ifthe cans sway and touch at the top without rack movement, the resulting geometry is no more limiting than the infinite lattice. This is verified further by the explicit interface models for Region 1 and 2 in the next section.
| |
| 4.3.6.3.3 Interface Region Seismic Analysis The seismic event is assumed to move all the racks so that their base plates are touching. This was modeled for the Type 1,2, and 3 racks. For Type 4 amore severe result was modeled. This model assumed that the Type 4 racks were compressed until they touched the edges of the Type 1 racks.
| |
| = Allthese conditions are beyond the seismic conditions projected by the structural analyses in Section 3.5.3.1.14. At the interface between the two regions, the seismic event is assumed to reduce the spacing between Regions 1 and 2. The combined interface model is used with a reduced spacing between the regions of 0.004" (0.01 cm). Again, this bounds any actual calculated minimum gap of 0.071" (0.18 cm), which reduces the separation between cells from 1.57" (4.0 cm) to 0.85" (2.17 cm). The difference between the results of the seismic and the base interface models determine the hk of the event. As with the interface models, the size of the racks requires an examination of selected portions of the racks (see Figure 4.3-7). The first evaluation examined the Type 2 and 3 movement. The evaluation seismic effects on the Type 1 racks, were divided into effects for Types 1, 2A, and 4C, i.e., the south face of the rack, and the north face, Types 1, 3A, and 4F. The south face is expected to show the highest increase in reactivity because of the lack of Boraflex on the south face of the Type 1 rack.
| |
| 4.3.7 Summary of Results This section lists the results &om the various analyses for the Ginna storage racks. They show that the racks satisfy the 0.95 criticality safety criterion for both normal and abnormal conditions. The bases for this conclusion are provided in this section.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 346
| |
| | |
| 4.3.7.1 Analytical Results for Region 1 The results for the normal condition of Region 1 are listed in Table 4.1-3 which provides the calculated k,ifand the maximum k, K as a function ofburnup and enrichment. Accident condition reactivities are summarized in Table 4.3-13. A brief discussion of these results is given in this section.
| |
| 4.3.7.1.1 Normal Condition Results Each model used in this analysis provides a calculated k,based upon nominal dimensions. Thus, the effects of variations around the nominal and biases must be combined with the calculated k,a to determine maximum K-effective (K g. Table 4.3-12 summarizes the Region 1 penalties, uncertainties, and biases that are used to obtain K . K is calculated for Region 1 as follows:
| |
| < = >,g+~>+~>+ (1 763*~,)'+(1 763*0hI)'+(0,)'here, is the calculated k from KENO V.a; b,kb; is the KENO V.a methodology bias; hk is the sum of penalties for pool temperature and off-center placement;
| |
| <c is the KENO V.a statistical uncertainty in k,ff, Obi~ is the uncertainty in the KENO V.a methodology bias; 0~0i is the sum of tolerance uncertainties.
| |
| The Region 1 analyses considered fresh 4.0 wt% "'U fuel checker boarded with spent fuel. The spent fuel burnup versus enrichment curve illustrated in Figure 4.1-1 specifies the minimum burnup versus enrichment for the loading spent fuel adjacent to fresh assemblies in this region. The target of used to generate the curve was approximately 0.92 to provide a K of about 0.94. The KENO V.a results are shown in Table 4.1-3. These results are based upon 1,000,000 neutron histories(1000 batches of 1003 neutrons), as are all KENO V.a results. As seen, the highest K for any enrichment is 0.943 with a margin to the limit of 0.0081. This verifies that the Region 1 racks satisfy the criticality safety criterion for fresh fuel with a nominal enrichment less s 4.0 wt%"'U.
| |
| The minimum burnup values listed in Table 4.1-3 are those that provide the desired k,ir &om KENO V.a. However, the loading of assemblies in the rack is based upon 'measured'urnups from the plant computer. To account for the uncertainty in the measured burnup, the calculated burnups used in the loading curve are increased by 5%. The 5% value is based upon the flux map measurement uncertainty of the incore detectors'" and is similar to the uncertainty of other Westinghouse plants
| |
| ""'". Since burnup is the integrated power over time, the power uncertainty limits the maximum uncertainty in burnup to less than 4% for the integrated power and 5% for the local power. Thus, a 5% value has been conservatively selected for the uncertainty of the assembly average measured burnup.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 347
| |
| | |
| s~ .
| |
| + ~
| |
| C ' '
| |
| O'.'E -4 !
| |
| | |
| 4.3.7.1.2 Burnup Versus Enrichment Curve A polynomial curve is generated to allow easy determination of the burnup limit at a given nominal enrichment based on the data points in Table 4.1-3. A multiple regression analysis is performed on the enrichment/burnup points, and a third order polynomial is determined. The resulting polynomial curve that differentiates Region A from Region B in Figure 4.1-1 is:
| |
| y= -53.570547+38.06359x - 7.81411x'+0.692842x'here x is nominal enrichment in wt% "U andy is in terms of either MWd/kgU or GWd/mtU.
| |
| Based upon this polynomial, the minimum burnup for fuel with a nominal enrichment of 4.0 wt%
| |
| "'U is 28 GWd/mtU. For the loading curve and Table 4.1-1, this value is multiplied by 1.05 to account for the burnup measurement uncertainty. Thus, for fuel with a nominal enrichment of 5.0 wt% 'U fuel, a minimum burnup of 29.4 GWd/mtU is required for the spent fuel to be loaded in Region 1. Table 4.1-1 lists the acceptable burnups versus enrichments based upon the above polynomial fit to verified points at enrichments of 2.22, 3, 4, and 5 wt%.
| |
| 4.3.7.1.3 IFBA Rod Requirements The previous licensing analysis'" used the concept of reactivity equivalencing for storage of fuel assemblies with nominal enrichments greater than 4.0 wt% ~'U in the Region 1 racks. This concept, based upon the reactivity decrease associated with the addition of Integral Fuel Burnable Absorbers, is retained for fuel with nominal enrichments greater than 4.0 wt% "'U. The IFBA analysis performed for the previous licensing report was not repeated in its entirety. However, CASMO-3 calculations were performed to verify that the IFBA requirements specified in that analysis remain valid for the BSS racks of Region 1. Similarly, the kreference criticality reactivity point was verified as 1.458 for fresh fuel in Ginna core geometry with a nominal enrichment of 4.0 wt% ~'U.
| |
| Thus, the results, and appropriate use of the results &om the previous analysis remains applicable to storage of fuel assemblies with nominal enrichments greater than 4.0 wt% "U in the Region 1 racks. For completeness, the appropriate IFBA sections ofthe previous licensing document are listed in Section 4.4.3.
| |
| 4.3.7.1.4 Accident Conditions The results for the analysis of the assembly drop accidents, i.e., T-bone, misplaced assembly, side drop and deep drop, are discussed in this section. In addition, the results &om the seismic event are provided for all rack types.
| |
| a) Assembly Drop Accidents - The Region 1 assembly drop analyses include the T-bone, side drop, deep drop (or drop through) accidents, and the misplaced assembly. Table 4.3-13 summarizes the results from these analyses. The T-bone accident has a minimal effect on reactivity, i.e., within the statistical uncertainty of the cases, even though it is a very conservative model. The misloading of a 4 wt% 'U fresh assembly between four adjacent assemblies shows only a small reactivity increase, about 1% b,k. The deep drop accident with maximum expected deformation of the base plate shows essentially no change in reactivity. The dropping of an assembly in the cask lay down area (Figure 4.3-12), in the corner between racks 3E and 2B, shows the largest increase for a dropped assembly, about 4% hk. Since application of the soluble boron credit is allowed by the double 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 348
| |
| | |
| 114 1
| |
| * 4, ~
| |
| <<4
| |
| | |
| contingency principle, 300 ppm boron was added to the water in the model. This reduced the reactivity about 2% hk below the base case, or about 6% h,k below the accident value. Thus, a small concentration of boron in the pool water, <300 ppm, easily compensates for the reactivity from any of these accidents.
| |
| b) Seismic Conditions - As discussed in Section 4.3.6.3, the seismic event is assumed to have moved all the racks so that their base plates are touching. This was modeled for the Type 1, 2, and 3 racks. For Type 4 a more severe result was modeled. This model assumed that the Type 4 racks were compressed until they touched the edges of the Type 1 racks. Allthese conditions are beyond .
| |
| the post-event conditions projected by the structural analyses in Section 3.5.3.1.14. The results of the analyses are listed in Table 4.3-15.
| |
| The first evaluation examined the Type 2 and 3 movement. The accident results in about a 0.4% hk increase in reactivity over the normal condition. Due to the number of Type 1 racks in Region 2, the evaluation of seismic effects on the Type 1 racks examined only portions of Region 1 (see Figure 4.3-7). The effect on Type 1, and racks 2A and 4C, i.e., the south face of the rack, and Type 1 and racks 3A and 4F, the north face, were considered individually. The south face, as expected, showed the highest increase, about 1% hk. This was expected due to lack of Boraflex on the south face of the Type 1 rack. The north face showed an increase equivalent to that for Types 2 and 3 alone, about 0.4% hk. Due to the small change in reactivity associated with this accident, the 300 ppm soluble boron required to cover the side-drop accident is more than sufficient to cover the seismic event effects.
| |
| 4.3.7.2 Analytical Results for Region 2 The Region 2 analysis requires a more in-depth discussion since burnup credit is more extensively applied in Region 2. The results for the normal conditions are discussed in Section 4.3.7.2.1.
| |
| Development of the burnup versus enrichment curve is addressed in Section 4.3.7.2.2. A discussion
| |
| *of the auxiliary curves that allow the loading of abnormal assemblies is provided in Section 4.3.7.2.3. Finally accident condition results are related in Section 4.3.7.2.4.
| |
| 4.3.7.2.1 Analytical Results for Normal Conditions Each model used in this analysis provides a calculated k,ir based upon nominal dimensions. Thus, adjustments are made to the calculated k,~ to obtain the maximum k,a (K g. Table 4.3-12 summarizes the Region 2 uncertainties, penalties, and biases and combines the individual values to provide the overall adjustment as a function of rack type. These values are then applied to the k,a.
| |
| calculated by KENO V.a as follows:
| |
| IC,= k,~+6kb,+6k,+ (1.763+0,) +(1.763+ob,) +(oI) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 349
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ I where, is the calculated k from KENO V.a; 8kb; is the KENO V.a methodology bias; b,k is the sum of penalties for pool temperature, "B self-shielding, and off-center placement; Oc is the KENO V.a statistical uncertainty in k,a; Obi~ is the uncertainty in the KENO V.a methodology bias; o~oi is the sum of tolerance uncertainties.
| |
| As discussed in Section 4.4.2.4, a significant amount of Boraflex degradation, i.e., both gapping and loss of thickness, are included in the base model for the Type 1 rack ( providing a hk margin of 0.048, see Section 4.4.2.4). To facilitate the management of the loading of the rack, a single loading curve for all three rack types is desired. Thus, the loading curve for Type 1 is bounding. This rack represents the base model that is used to generate the loading curve. Subsequently, the application of this curve to Types 2 and 4 will validate the conservatism of a single loading curve for all rack types in Region 2. The burnup versus enrichment curve for Region 2 is illustrated in Figure 4.1-2.
| |
| It specifies the minimum burnup versus enrichment for loading spent fuel in this region. The target k,a used to generate the curve was about 0.93 to provide a g of about 0.94. The results of the KENO V.a calculations are shown in Table 4.1-4 for all the rack types comprising Region 2. As seen, the highest K for any enrichment is 0.946 with a margin to the limit of 0.004. This verifies that the Region 2 racks satisfy the criticality safety criterion. Also recall that the values for the Type 4 rack result &om a finite model that combines all three types in Region 1 and represents the more reactive south face. This combination shows that the infinite models used to generate the results for Types 2 and 3 provides an additional margin in the results over that from a more explicit finite model.
| |
| 4.3.7.2.2 Base Burnup Versus Enrichment Curve As with Region 1, a polynomial curve is generated for Region 2 to allow easy determination of the burnup limit at a given enrichment. For Region 2, the base curve fits the data points from the Type 1 results in Table 4.1-4. A multiple regression analysis is performed on the enrichment/burnup points, and a third order polynomial is determined. The resulting polynomial curve that diQerentiates regions A1 and A2 from regions B and C in Figure 4.1-2 is:
| |
| y = -27.058824+17.69608x - 0.41176x'0.04902x'here x is the nominal enrichment in wt% 'U andy is in terms of either Mwd/KgU or GWd/mtU.
| |
| Based upon this polynomial, the minimum burnup for fuel with a nominal enrichment of 5.0 wt%
| |
| "U is 45 GWd/mtU. For the loading curve or Table 4.1-2, this value is multiplied by 1.05 to account for the burnup measurement uncertainty. Thus, for fuel with a nominal enrichment of 5.0 wt% "'U fuel, a minimum burnup of 47.25 GWd/mtU is required for the spent fuel to be loaded in Region 1. Table 4.1-2 lists the acceptable base minimum burnups versus nominal enrichments &om the above polynomial fit to verified points at nominal enrichments of 1.6, 3, 4, and 5 wt%.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 350
| |
| | |
| 4.3.7.2.3 Loading Curve for Abnormally Burned Assemblies Figure 4.1-2 shows the base line curve and all assemblies that are currently stored in the Ginna storage rack. As noted most assemblies have burnups above the loading curve, areas Al and A2.
| |
| However, some assemblies do not meet the minimum burnup requirements. This condition is the result of accommodating a significant amount of Boraflex degradation into the models. Without this degradation model, all assemblies would satisfy the curve for the Boraflex rack, as is noted in the current license. However, with the Boraflex degradation all assemblies do not meet the loading requirements. These assemblies can be loaded into Region 2 with more restrictive administrative controls. An auxiliary set of loading curves is obtained for assemblies s10% below the base curve, by area B. These assemblies must be loaded in a checker board arrangement with fuel 'efined assemblies with burnups above the upper curve, in area Al. These curves are defined by the following polynomials:
| |
| y, = -33.584697 +17.69608x - 0.41176x'0.04902x'=
| |
| -19.565780+17.69608x - 0.41176x'0.04902x'here, y, is the equation of the lower line defining the lower limit of area B, and y is the equation of the upper line defining the lower limit of area Al.
| |
| These lines are based upon the KENO V.a results for storage of fuel with a nominal enrichment of 5.0 wt% ~'U with burnups at 38.5 and 55.2 GWd/mtU in a checker board arrangement in rack Type
| |
| : 1. Table 4.1-4 lists the K for this point. This value was obtained by applying an axial correction factor to the case that was evaluated for a uniform axial shape, see Section 4.4.2. The polynomial fit was generated based upon the constants of the base curve with the intercept chosen to pass through the required 5 wt% 'U upper and lower burnup points. Points at 3 and 4 wt% "U were evaluated to verify the conservatism of this curve. For the 3 and 4 wt% "U enrichments, upper/lower burnups of 18/25 and 29.1/40 GWd/mtU were assumed in the calculation, respectively.
| |
| These burnups are within the upper and lower curves, i.e., requiring upper/lower burnups of 15.2/29.9 and 28.8/43.5 GWd/mtU for 3 and 4 wt%, respectively. The k,ff values for the chosen burnups were 0.92840 and 0.90950, respectively. Both values satisfy the criticality criterion with all factors included. Thus, even though the upper burnup is in area A2, the criticality criterion is met.
| |
| This shows that there is conservatism built into the polynomial.
| |
| 4.3.7.2.4 Results for Accident Conditions The results for the accidents considered for Region 2 are listed in Table 4.3-14. These include the T-bone and misplaced assembly analysis for rack Type 2 and the misplaced assembly and deep drop accident for Type 1. The side-drop accident for all rack types is bounded by that listed in Table 4.3-13 for the drop into the corner of racks 2B and 3E (Figure 4.3-12). The deep drop accident for Types 2 and 4 are equivalent to that for Type 3 since the base plates are of similar construction and will experience the same damage for this accident. Due to the fabrication similarity between rack Types 2 and 4, the accident results for these two racks will be equivalent. Since the reactivity increases are minimal, an individual evaluation for Type 4 is not necessary.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 351
| |
| | |
| A review of Table 4.3-14 shows that the reactivity changes for the Type 2 and Type 4 racks are less than 1% ddc for all the drop accidents. 'This small change is within the range of that for Type 1 and easily covered by 450 ppm soluble boron. The Type 1 rack misplaced assembly gives a reactivity increase larger to that of the side-drop accident. The misplaced fresh assembly, see Figure 4.3-15, is assumed to replace an A1 assembly arranged in a checker board pattern with assemblies &om area B. This is the bounding misplaced accident condition for this region. A minimum soluble boron concentration of 450 ppm reduces the reactivity to about 2% hk below the reactivity of the normal condition. Thus, a small amount of soluble boron adequately negates the reactivity increase from this or any other accident condition.
| |
| 4.3.S Fuel Rod Consolidation The storage racks currently contain several consolidated fuel containers and are designed to accommodate additional fuel consolidation in the future. Figure 4.3-17 provides a sketch of the consolidation canister with dimensions based upon Table 4.3-2. The storage of these containers was evaluated with a series of KENO V.a calculations for both normal and abnormal conditions. The results of these calculations confirm the criticality safety of storage of consolidation containers in the storage racks.
| |
| The evaluation of the consolidation canisters was made with modifications of the basic KENO V.a rack models. The modifications involved replacing spent fuel assemblies in each of the rack regions with a model of the consolidation canister. The base canister model assumed only a square stainless steel can with an outer square dimension of 8.02" (20.371cm) and a wall thickness of 0.089" (0.2261 cm). These dimensions include tolerance values, see Table 4.3-2, to provide the largest interior dimension for the container, 7.842" (19.919 cm). This dimension will provide the largest pitch for the fuel rods in the container and thus optimize the reactivity. The base canister model contained 144" (356.76 cm) fuel rods without axial blankets or integral absorbers. For Region 1, fresh 2.22 wt% ~'U rods were placed in the container, while for Region 2, 1.6 wt% ~'U rods were modeled.
| |
| The optimum reactivity of the container in each type rack was then obtained with a series of KENO V.a cases by varying both the number and pitch ofthe rods in the container model. Table 4.3-11 lists the optimized results of this evaluation for Rack types 1, 2, and 3 The similarity between rack
| |
| ~
| |
| Types 2 and 4 obviated the need for an evaluation for the Type 4 rack.
| |
| The resultslistedin Table4.3-11 for Rack Type 1 showthat for 1.6 wt% "Urods the criticality criterion is satisfied for the optimized container with either 196 rods from a Westinghouse standard assembly or 225 rods from a Westinghouse OFA assembly. These results are based upon the rack model with boraflex degradation. These results differ Rom the previous analysis'" for this rack in two respects. First, they show that there are no restrictions on the number of rods that can be placed in the container. Second, the optimized array size is 196 for Standard and 225 for OFA rods in this analysis for 1.6 wt% 'U rods, and was 169 for Standard rods at 1.85 wt% and 196 for OFA rods at 1.95 wt% in the previous analysis. The optimization of rods is dependent upon both the configuration in which the rods are placed and upon the enrichment of the rods. For Rack Type 1 the enrichment is the primary cause for the differences. This was verified by repeating the calculations with the conditions used in the previous analysis which showed agreement essentially within the statistical uncertainty of KENO V.a. An additional evaluation was made to assess the effect of the center plate in this rack. The center plate was added to the model between the center pins in the container (for the array with an odd number ofpins, it was placed to one side of the center 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 352
| |
| | |
| C of the container). No re-optimization was made for this configuration, however due to the thinness of the plate, it is judged it will not significantly effect the optimization parameters. The insertion of the center plate reduced K by about 2.7% hk for both the OFA and Standard assemblies. Thus, there is significant conservatism in the models.
| |
| The Rack Type 2 results in Table 4.3-11 are similar to those of Rack Type 1 relative to the optimum pitch. The lower K values reflect the conservatism inherent in this rack. This conservatism is based upon burnup versus enrichment curves based upon a degraded Rack Type 1 model that is applied to Rack Type 2. The Rack Type 3 results in Table 4.3-11 illustrate the effect of the in which the container is placed. The Rack Type 3 configuration causes the optimum 'onfiguration number of OFA rods to peak at 196 rather than 225 rods. Both Rack Type 2 and 3 results show that the criticality criterion is satisfied without modeling the center plate. Additional margin exists due to the presence of the center plate.
| |
| These results indicate that for normal conditions, the criticality condition is satisfied for storage of consolidation containers in locations for intact spent assemblies. The analysis examined the maximum fresh fuel enrichment allowed by the burnup versus enrichment curve for each region.
| |
| Based upon the reactivity equivalency of these curves, spent fuel rods with enrichment and burnup pairs in the acceptable areas of these curves can fillthe containers and satisfy the criticality criterion.
| |
| The abnormal condition considers all the rods spilling from the consolidation container into the storage pool. To bound the accident condition, it is assumed that the rods form into an optimized square array in the storage pool. A 19x19 array of rods is modeled that provides a 361-rod array to bound the maximum number of rods that can be stored in the container, 358. The evaluation considers arrays of both 1.6 and 2.22 wt% "'U rods. CASMO-3 calculations determined the optimum pitch for these enrichments at about 1.95 cm and 2.05 cm, respectively for the 1.6 and 2.22 wt% "'U rods in a square array. This optimized array of 144" (365.76 cm) long fuel rods was modeled with KENO V.a with an infinite water reflector to determine the k,ir of the array for both enrichments. For the 1.6 wt% ~'U rods, KENO V.a obtained a k,~+ 1o of 0.87510 + 0.00059, well below the 0.95 limit. For 2.22 wt% "'U rods, the k,~ + 10 was 0.97697 + 0.00059 in unborated water and 0.80706 + 0.00056 with a moderator boron concentration of 450 ppm. The minimal concentration of boron in the moderator significantly reduces the reactivity of this accident. Based upon these results, with the minimum boron concentration of 450 ppm, the safety criterion is satisfied for the fuel rods that satisfy the spent fuel burnup versus enrichment curves for either Region 1 or 2.
| |
| 4.3.9 Acceptance Criteria for Criticality This criticality analysis evaluates Westinghouse-OFA &esh fuel and Westinghouse Standard fuel in the Region 1 and 2 racks of the R.E.Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. A maximum nominal enrichment of 4.0 wt% ~'U &esh fuel is justified for Region 1. Fresh fuel enrichments above 4.0 wt% 'U to a nominal 5.0 wt% ~'U are allowed with an appropriate number of IFBA rods loaded in the assemblies. This is accomplished by a checker board loading plan with spent fuel loaded according to the curve in Figure 4.1-1. For Region 2, initial enrichments up to a nominal 5.0 wt% ~'U may be loaded according to the loading curve illustrated in Figure 4.1-2 . Both normal and accident conditions have been evaluated for these two regions. The accidents considered are:
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 353
| |
| : 1. A dropped assembly on top, beside, and into the racks.
| |
| : 2. Rack movements for Region 1, 2, and the interface between Regions 1 and 2.
| |
| : 3. A misplaced assembly for Regions 1 and 2.
| |
| The analysis further demonstrates that the criticality criterion is not affected by the interaction of Region 1 and 2 racks under normal conditions.
| |
| Burnup is used as a mechanism to control the reactivity of the Region 1 and Region 2 storage racks.
| |
| For Region 1, a nominal enrichment of 5.0 wt% ~'U requires a minimum burnup of 29.4 GWd/mtU to be loaded in a checker board pattern with &esh fuel with reactivities less than or equal to that for nominal 4.0 wt% "'U fuel with no IFBA rods. The Region 2 racks require a minimum burnup of 47.25 GWd/mtU for a nominal enrichment limit of 5.0 wt% ~'U. The values used to determine the minimum burnup as a function of initial enrichment account for the effect of manufacturing and fuel assembly tolerance effects on reactivity. In addition, the tabulated minimum burnups listed in Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 include a burnup 'measurement'ncertainty of 5%.
| |
| The evaluation of consolidated fuel containers demonstrates that the containers may be stored anywhere in Regions 1 and 2 following the loading requirements of that of the most restrictive rod in the consolidated container. This applies to either completely filled, 358 rods, or partially filled containers.
| |
| 4.4 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION This section provides additional discussions about the evaluation of the KENO V.a bias and the procedure followed to generate the burnup versus enrichment curves. Section 4.4.1 describes the comparison between KENO V.a and experimental results and the evaluation of trends in the comparison. A description of the facets involved with generating the loading curves including an illustration of the axial shape effect is provided in Section 4.4.2.
| |
| 4.4.1 KENO V.a Bias The KENO V.a bias is evaluated in this section. An examination of light water reactor critical experiments for low-enriched ~'U lattices indicates a trend in the bias related to the separation distance between assemblies. A total of fifty-seven critical light water moderated, low-enriched fuel configurations are evaluated with KENO V.a and the 44 group cross section library. A trend of increased bias with the separation distance between fuel arrays is noted (see Figure 4.4-1) such that the bias reaches a maximum b,k of -0.0087+ 0.0026 (1.7630 uncertainty) with a 2.576" (6.543 cm) spacing between the fuel arrays (Table 4.4-1). Based upon this trend the biases for Region 1 and Region 2 as related to the separation distance of the edges of the assemblies in the racks are -0.0070
| |
| + 0.00096,k for Region 1 (1.46" or 3.7 cm separation) and -0.0056 + 0.0009 hk for Region 2 (0.65" or 1.64 cm separation), see Table 4.4-1. A brief description of the critical experiments, determination of the bias, and validation of the trend is provided in this section.
| |
| 4.4.1.1 Critical Experiments A total of fifty-seven critical experiments was evaluated with KENO V.a to determine the bias inherent in its methodology. Allexperiments were conducted to simulate low-enriched, light-water reactor fuel arrays in storage pool configurations. This includes both UO, and mixed oxide fuel compositions. The experiments contain uranium enrichments &om about 2.3 to 5.7 and plutonium 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 354
| |
| | |
| enrichments Rom 2 to 6 wt%. Rack geometry is simulated with variations on fuel array spacings and with interspersed absorber materials between the arrays. Thus, all these experiments are directly applicable to rack analyses. The experiments have been divided into four sets. The first examines a set of twenty-one critical configurations'erformed specifically for rack simulation for a single fuel enrichment. The second is a series of sixteen additional UO, criticals"'overing a range of enrichments and conditions. The third is a set of twelve mixed oxide criticals"" that are included to support analysis of spent fuel. The last set comprises eight other UOi critical configurations that have been approved for an international data base'~. This last set includes results from the MCNP Monte Carlo code"'nd KENO V.a with the 27 group cross section set. These other calculations an independent verification of the results and trends for the 44 group KENO V.a results. 'rovide The first set of benchmark cases are 21 experiments representing close proximity water storage of LWR fuel. The fuel enrichment for these experiments is 2.459 wt%. The configurations examined the eQects of fuel array spacing, soluble boron in the moderator, and interspersed absorbers between fuel arrays. The absorbers included B4C rods, stainless steel sheets, and borated aluminum sheets with four difFerent boron concentrations. These experiments span the general range of applicability for storage rack calculations and thus form the base set for the bias determination. Table 4.4-1 lists the calculated and experimental k,ir values plus the bias for this series of experiments. For the group as a whole, the average bias is about -0.0056 with a standard deviation of about 0.0024. However, examination of the bias as a function of spacing indicates a trend in the data. Figure 4.4-2 provides a plot of the bias as a function of separation distance between fuel arrays. The data plotted includes both water gaps and cases with interspersed absorber materials, i.e., B4C rods and stainless steel and borated aluminum sheets. The trend of increasing bias is apparent in all cases. The trend appears to indicate that the bias will continue to increase as the spacing increases. However, eventually the fuel arrays will be isolated from each other and the bias is expected to return to the zero spacing value. The International Handbook cases discussed later show this behavior for the water gap bias.
| |
| The largest bias occurs for spacings between 6 and 7 centimeters and then returns to a value close to the bias at the zero spacing for a spacing of about 12 cm.
| |
| Data for interspersed absorbers is being reviewed and is not available at this time. However, exainining the sparse data &om these experiments, seems to indicate that the spacing for the largest bias is dependent upon the amount of absorber present. The higher the amount of absorber material, the smaller the spacing for the minimum in the bias. This is most easily seen by reviewing the B4C rod cases which contain a large amount of absorber and comparing these with the various borated aluminum sheet cases. Note that the data for 0.4 wt% 'U borated aluminum is suspect due to the large uncertainty in the boron content of the sheets. It also appears that the magnitude of the bias decreases as the absorber increases. The variation of the spacing for the bias minimum and bias magnitude with the absorber content seems reasonable, since these materials increase the isolation of fuel arrays and tend to reduce the spacing required for full isolation. These trends willbe factored into the biases applied to the Ginna storage rack analyses.
| |
| The next two sets of benchmark comparisons were performed to widen the range of applicability of the calculations. The UO, critical experiments cover a wider range of enrichments and some additional absorber materials. The KENO V.a bias for these sets is listed in Table 4.4-2. Since there was little spacing variation in these cases, the average bias is -0.0023 + 0.0025, indicating essentially no bias. No trend is noted relative to enrichment in these cases. The mixed oxide criticals 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 355
| |
| | |
| ~ ~
| |
| .t
| |
| | |
| comparisons, Table 4.4-3, provide a bias relative to plutonium in fuel rods that is applicable to burnup credit. The cases primarily varied the lattice pitch and the effect of boron in the moderator.
| |
| No obvious trends are noted and the average bias of the set is -0.0023 + 0.0033. Thus, these cases extend the benchmarks to various enrichments and fuel mixtures without any indication of bias trends relative to these parameters.
| |
| The B&Wcritical data provides a good set for bench-marking methodologies for rack calculations.
| |
| However, the data stops at a spacing with a large bias and does not illustrate the expected reduction in the bias as the spacing continues to increase. The data obtained from the International Handbook .
| |
| "'upplies several spacing points beyond those from B&Wfor water between the fuel arrays. In addition, it provides comparisons of results from other analysis methodologies. This data enables verification of the expected trend for larger spacings. Additionally, it provides independent verification of the calculational techniques. Table 4.4-4 provides the results &om the Handbook and those calculated with KENO V.a using the 44 group cross section set. The Handbook critical experiments have a critical k,~ of 0.9998. Results are provided from a) KENO V.a with the 27 groups SCALE set, and b) MCNP with the continuous energy cross section set. Figure 4.4-2 illustrates the trends in the data of Table 4.4-4. The figure shows substantial agreement for the trend with the edge-to-edge spacing among the different methods. However, the absolute biases differ.
| |
| The MCNP results, with a continuous energy set, give the smallest bias, as would be expected from the cross section representation. The 44 group set gives intermediate results both for the Handbook benchmarks and for the B&Wexperiments. The 27 group set has the largest bias which illustrates the rationale for the migration to the 44 group set for criticality analyses. The figure shows a valley in the bias for spacings between six and eight centimeters. As expected the bias decreases as the spacing increases beyond this range and seems to be approaching the zero spacing bias. Figure 4.4-3 shows plots of the 44 group KENO V.a results and a least square fit ofthe data. The fit curve clearly indicates the trend of the data with a valley around eight centimeters and a return to the zero spacing bias as the spacing increases beyond the valley. This trend willbe considered for the biases applied to the Region 1 and 2 storage racks.
| |
| The absorber material in both Region 1 and the replacement racks in Region 2 is borated stainless steel. The minimum boron content in the stainless steel is 1.7 wt%. The absorber material in the Type 1 rack is Boraflex with a boron content of about 34 wt% boron. The "B areal density of the BSS plates range &om about 0.006 to 0.007g/cm', the Boraflex sheet is about 0.02 g/cm, and that of the borated aluminum plates used in the experiment from about 0.0008 to 0.01 g/cm . Thus, the absorber content of the BSS and Boraflex is within, or near, the range of the experimental plates.
| |
| In addition to the boron, the stainless steel in the BSS plates serves as a mild absorber. The bias associated with stainless steel plates was also evaluated with the experimental configurations.
| |
| Rather than try to relate the bias to a specific absorber density, the average of the biases for the interspersed B-Al and SS sheets is obtained at each spacing interval and a least square fit generated to allow estimation of the biases for the Regions 1 and 2 spacings. A review of the data indicated that consideration of only the B-Al sheets provided the largest bias, for conservatism the averages used for the least squares fit only included these data. The fitting equation is:
| |
| I 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 356
| |
| | |
| y= -0.00348 - 0.00003s + 0.00027s'0.00152s' where, isthebias,and s is the spacing in centimeters.
| |
| The edge-to-edge spacing between centered assemblies in Region 1 is about 1.46" (3.68 cm) and in Region 2 the spacing is about 0.65" (1.6 4 cm). Based on the above polynomial the bias for Region 1 is -0.0070 hk and for Region 2, -0.0056 b,k. The maximum standard deviation in the average value at the nearest experimental points to the actual spacings is taken as the uncertainty in the bias, 0.0009 in this case. These values willbe used to include the uncertainty in the KENO V.a methodology into the criticality safety evaluation of the Ginna storage racks.
| |
| 4.4.1.2 CASMO-3/KENO V.a Benchmarks To provide assurance that CASMO-3 is consistent with KENO V.a, it is benchmarked against KENO V.a for selected critical configurations. CASMO-3 is a two-dimensional code that allows an explicit model of a fuel region in the x-y direction with the implicit reflective boundary conditions on the outer surfaces. Thus, CASMO-3 does not have the geometrical capability to adequately model the critical experiment directly. Thus, an indirect benchmark is necessary. This indirect benchmark is derived by modifying several critical configurations into a fuel region that can be modeled both by CASMO-3 and KENO V.a. These configurations provide the desired benchmark between KENO V.a and CASMO-3, and indirectly, with critical experiments. The comparisons between CASMO-3 and KENO V.a for Region 1 and 2 rack models also an independent verification of the KENO V.a absolute results.
| |
| Six critical arrangements'~ are chosen for this comparison from the benchmark cases described in the previous section. Table 4A-5 lists the configurations and significant information about the selected cases. Table 4.4-6 provides the results &om CASMO-3 and KENO V.a. These results show that the bias between CASMO-3 and KENO V.a is generally similar to the KENO V.a bias obtained
| |
| &om the critical experiments. The CASMO-3/KENO V.a differences exhibit about the same trends as the KENO V.a bias. The last column in Table 4.4-6 lists the sum of K,ir, the bias, and the uncertainty to give K . As noted this value is generally slightly greater than the CASMO-3 value.
| |
| The comparisons between CASMO-3 and KENO V.a for Region 1 and 2 rack models also serve as a benchmark, as well as an independent verification of the KENO V.a absolute results. The comparison is shown in Table 4.4-7 and again shows excellent agreement between the two codes.
| |
| Although the KENO V.a k,~ value slightly underestimates the CASMO-3 result, application of the KENO bias and uncertainties provides the maximum k,irwhich exceeds the CASMO-3 result. Since all absolute values quoted for KENO V.a for the analysis have the bias applied, conservative results are obtained by use of KENO V.a rather than CASMO-3 values.
| |
| 4.4.1.3 KENO V.a Infinite to Finite Model Comparison The base analyses use models of the racks that are infinite in the x-y direction. Due to the size of the rack regions this is generally a good assumption with some conservatism. Table 4.4-8 which lists the hk between the infinite and finite models for each rack. The result for rack Type 1 illustrates the 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 357
| |
| | |
| k 4
| |
| | |
| slight conservatism in the model for a regular rack array. Rack Types 2 and 3 do not have BSS plates in the cells that face the pool walls and create a smaller storage region than Type 1. Thus, this comparison was performed to ensure that the infinite model is indeed conservative relative to an actual finite model. The results in Table 4.4-8 show that this is the case even with the BSS removed
| |
| &om the edges. This comparison shows about a 0.5% b,k conservatism in the models for the BSS racks.
| |
| 4.4.2 Burnup Credit Methodology Typically a burnup credit analysis uses a uniform, average burnup distribution over the entire length 'f the assembly. This distribution underestimates the burnup at the center of the assembly and overestimates the burnup at the top and bottom. To adequately utilize burnup credit the axial effects must be understood. This requires that an estimate of the reactivity effects of the axial burnup distribution relative to a uniform distribution must be determined and appropriately applied to the results. Alternatively, the explicit axial distribution can be modeled in the KENO V.a calculation.
| |
| This removes the need for application of an axial burnup penalty. This analysis uses the latter method which is described in this section. This includes a description of the assumptions used to generate both the axial burnup profile and the number densities for the axial segments. This methodology for burnup credit is very similar to that already accepted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission4.'0,4.i3,4.i6 4.4.2.1 Axial Profile Generation
| |
| . The axial effects have been found to vary with the amount ofburnup. Indeed in the range &om about 10 to 20 GWd/mtU, the use of a uniform axial shape provides conservative results. Also, for storage of fresh fuel adjacent to burned fuel, the use of a uniform axial burnup shape is conservative.
| |
| However, &om about 20 to 50 GWd/mtU, the axial burnup shape has a significant effect. To provide an estimate ofthe effect typical axial burnup shapes were obtained &om several irradiated assemblies of the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, see Table 4.4-9. These covered both OFA and Standard assemblies with burnups ranging &om 10 to about 48 GWd/mtU. The selected assemblies covered a range of enrichments, axial blanket enrichments, core positions, and different cycles. The bulk of the data represented Westinghouse OFA assemblies with axial blankets from later cycles since these are, and will be, the most numerous assemblies. However, data &om an ANF assembly of Standard Westinghouse design was also examined. This assembly did not have axial blankets and the axial shapes from this assembly were chosen as representative, and bounding for axial blanketed fuel.
| |
| Figures 4.4-4 through 4.4-7 show a comparison of the normalized shapes for the examined assemblies. The shapes were broken into 10 GWd/mtU ranges &om 10 to 50 GWd/mtU. A review of the figures show the curves are very similar over each region. The OFA assemblies with natural uranium blankets show higher burnups in all nodes except the top and bottom two nodes which contain axial blankets. Assembly 'E60'ontains a 2.6 wt% ~'U blanket and shows lower burnup in the central region than the assemblies with blankets of natural enrichments. The non-blanket assembly 'Q16'lso shows a lower central burnup especially in the important top and bottom three nodes. The axial shape from this assembly was chosen to provide the axial effects for this reason, i.e., the lower burnups in the lower and upper three nodes. Note that while the natural uranium blankets have lower burnups in the outer two nodes, these are blanket zones that are essentially dead relative to rack reactivity. Thus, they can be ignored. The 2.6 wt% "'U assembly does have slightly lower burnup in the bottom node in the 10 to 20 GWd/mtU range. However, in the next two lower nodes and the three top nodes it is less than the non-blanket assembly. This behavior is ignored for 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 358
| |
| | |
| two reasons: first, the top nodes provide the most reactivity due to irradiation temperature effects, and second, in this region the axial eQects are minimal or nonexistent. Thus, the axial profile data Rom assembly 'Q16'as chosen as representative of the typical burnup profile for the Ginna core.
| |
| Table 4.4-10 lists the relative axial profile obtained &om typical fuel cycle analyses for this assembly as a function of end-of-cycle burnup. Figure 4.4-8 provides a plot of the absolute burnup as a function of height for each cycle of irradiation and Figure 4.4-9 shows the relative distribution.
| |
| A previous analysis showed that a seven-zone axial model was sufFicient to represent the axial effects'". This model explicitly represents the burnup in the top and bottom three nodes of the .
| |
| twenty-three analytical nodes. The central 17 nodes are averaged together to provide a single central zone. The central zone average value may be modified slightly to maintain the relative burnup equal to 1.0 ifthe sum of all seven zones does not equal 1.0. This maintains the desired average burnup associated with the shape. Figure 4.4-10 illustrates the seven node model for the 40/50 GWd/mtU burnup range. Note that the KENO V.a model assumes a 144" active fuel height while most of the past and current fuel had a height of about 141". To accommodate the added height, the extra length is added to the central portion of the curve, as noted by the gap at the center of the seven zone shape in Figure 4.4-10. Similar seven zone models are obtained for the other burnup ranges. Table 4.4-11 lists the relative axial shapes for each range in the seven zone model with the midpoint height of each node. For the analysis for Region 2, burnups of 21, 34, and 45 GWd/mtU were required for 3, 4 and 5 wt% ~'U initial enrichments. The shapes for these burnups are just the product of the relative distribution times the average burnup. Table 4.4-12 lists the zone burnup values for the burnups examined in this analysis. These burnups are used to obtain the nuclide concentrations in each zone.
| |
| 4.4.2.2 Axial Profile Isotopic Concentration Generation CASMO-3 generates the isotopic concentrations for each segment of the axial profile. The axial fuel and moderator temperature distributions influence the plutonium buildup that occurs as a function of depletion. A higher moderator temperature causes spectral "hardening" (a shift of the neutron energy spectrum to higher energy values) which increases conversion of ~'U to ~'Pu. Additionally, higher fuel temperatures cause Doppler broadening of the "'U resonance structure, also increasing
| |
| "'Pu production. To capture this effect, mid-cycle average axial moderator and fuel temperature profiles were obtained for the Ginna core. These data were used to approximate the average temperature data for the seven axial zones in the model. In addition, since the axial burnup profile represents a cumulative axial power distribution, the relative axial burnup values were used to obtain the average power in each zone. Due to the similarity in the profiles, the 40-50 GWd/mtU range burnup profile was used to obtain the power distribution that was used for all ranges. The temperature data and the power data are used by CASMO-3 to deplete the fuel to the desired burnup for each initial enrichment and each axial zone. Table 4.4-13 lists the seven zone data for 3.0 wt%
| |
| "'U initial enrichment and an average burnup of 21 GWd/mtU. The first table lists the input data for the CASMO-3 calculations. The second set of tables provides the nuclide concentrations in for each zone in terms of atoms/barn-cm. This data was used directly in KENO V.a for the evaluation at this enrichment and burnup. Similar data for 4.0 wt%/34 GWd/mtU and 5.0 wt%/45 GWd/mtU is listed in Tables 4.4-14 and 4.4-15.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 359
| |
| | |
| The isotopic concentration data was obtained by the following procedure. A CASMO-3 hot full power depletion is performed to determine the isotopics for each axial segment at the appropriate burnup, fuel and moderator temperature. These calculations are for Standard fuel assemblies without IFBA rods. A CASMO-3 calculation provides the base k;, for a fuel assembly with the shutdown isotopes at rack conditions. A second CASMO-3 rack model calculates the k;with only the shutdown fuel pellet concentrations of "0, 'U, "'U, 'U, Pu, "'Pu, "'Pu, and '"Sm (xenon and iodine are eliminated in both rack models). Previous analyses have shown that the use of shutdown isotopics without xenon essentially provides the maximum reactivity after irradiation. It provides conservative values when decay greater than about seven months is considered. A small amount of "B is added to the fuel pin until the second CASMO-3 model k;, agrees with the first. Tables 4.4-13 through 4.4-15 list the concentrations with the "B equivalent. In this manner, the added "B simulates the neutron absorption of the deleted isotopes for the KENO V.a model.
| |
| A similar process is used to generate the isotopic concentrations for the cases that use a uniform assembly average burnup, e.g., for the Region 1 analysis. Tables 4.4-16 and 4.4-17 list data for assembly average burnups. Table 4.4-16 provides the concentrations for cases used to provide the auxiliary lines for the Region 2 curve at 5 wt%. These curves allow storage of 5 wt% 'U initial enrichment assemblies with burnups of 38.5 and 52.2 GWd/mtU adjacent to each other. Note that for these curves a uniform distribution was used. However, it was corrected with the axial shape factor appropriate to the burnup range discussed in the next section. Table 4.4-17 provides the isotopic concentrations for the average burnups required for the Region 1 checker boarded burned fuel.
| |
| 4.4.2.3 Axial Reactivity Effects The axial burnup shapes are integrated into the models for Region 2 and thus the effects are explicitly considered in the results. However, it is instructive to evaluate the magnitude of the effect.
| |
| In addition, this evaluation illustrates that the number of histories and distribution of the neutron start types are sufficient to 'see'he effect. Table 4 4-18 lists the results of the evaluation for each rack type. The axial burnup distribution used to determine the base line for the Region 2 loading curve is used for this evaluation. As noted &om the table, all the Region 2 racks have about the same axial effect. Note that for the 3.0 wt% ~'U enrichment at 21 GWd/mtU burnup, the axial effect is almost nil, i.e., within statistical uncertainty. Thus, the values may be plus or minus. This effect varies with burnup and ranges &om about 2% hk for the 40-50 GWd/mtU range to about 0.0% b,k for about 21 GWd/mtU range. Reviewing the rack Type 1 results in Table 4.4-18, which shows both the degraded and the normal condition of the rack, the effect is relatively insensitive to the absorber material in the rack. Due to the magnitude of the differences, it is apparent that the statistics of the KENO V.a cases are recognizing the different axial zones and their importance. The Region 1, rack Type 3 results show a negative hk of about 0.5%. This confirms the assertion that for a fresh/burned combination, a 'uniform axial distribution provides conservative results. However, as is apparent for Region 2 the effect is significant and must be factored into the final k,ir either implicitly, as is done here, or by a larger margin to the 0.95 safety limit.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 360
| |
| | |
| 4 \
| |
| 4.4.2.4 Boraflex Degradation Model Margin The loading curves for rack Type 1 and Region 2 include margin for potential Boraflex degradation.
| |
| Table 4.4-19 lists the results of an assessment of the margin in the Boraflex degradation model. The uniform axial shape cases &om Table 4.4-18 for rack Type 1 with and without the degraded model are compared. The table shows that the degraded model provides a bk margin of 0.048 over the normal condition model. Thus, there is approximately a 5% margin in the loading curves for Region 2 to accommodate potential Boraflex loss.
| |
| 4.4.3 Westinghouse IFBA Documentation The following discussion of the IFBA credit was obtained Rom the previous licensing submittal'".
| |
| The results have been verified with the CASMO-3 code and remain unchanged for the current analysis. This verification also included verification of the infinite multiplication factor equivalencing. The text that follows has been extracted without change from the previous licensing report. Table 7 and Figure 8 cited in the text are appended to the end of the text, as are references.
| |
| IFBA Credit Reactivity Equivulencing "Storage offuel assemblies with nominal enrichments greater than 4.0 wlo U in the Region I spent fuel storage racks is achievable by means of the concept of reactivity equivalencing. The concept of reactivity equivalencing is predicated upon the reactivity decrease associated with the addition ofIntegral Fuel Burnable Absorbers (IFBA) ". IFBAs consist ofneutron absorbing material applied as a thin ZrBz coating on the outside ofthe UO~ fuel pellet. As a result, the neutron absorbing material is a non-removable or integral part ofthe fuel assembly once it is manufactured.
| |
| "Two analytical techniques are used to establish the criticality criteria for the storage of IFBA fuel in the fuel storage rack The first method uses reactivity equivalencing to establish the poison material loading required to meet the criticality limits. The poison material considered in this analysis is a zirconium diboride grBQ coating manufactured by Westinghouse. The second method uses the fuel assembly infinite multiplication factor to establish a reference reactivity. The reference reactivity point is compared to the fuel assembly peak reactivity to determine its acceptability for storage in the fuel racks.
| |
| "4.2.1 IFBA Requirement Determination "A series ofreactivity calculations are performed to generate a set ofIFBA rod number versus enrichment ordered pairs which all yield the equivalent K> when the fuel is stored in the Region 1 spent fuel racks. The following assumptions were used for the IFBA rod assemblies in the PHOENIXmodels:
| |
| : 1. The fuel assembly parameters relevant to the criticality analysis are based on the Westinghouse 14X14 OFA design (see Table I ... forfuel parameters). [editor' note: Table 1 is fully reproduced in Table 4.3-1].
| |
| : 2. The fuel assembly is modeled at its most reaci'ive point in life.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 361
| |
| | |
| gl *Il ~W
| |
| : 3. The fuel pellets are modeled assuming nominal values for theoretical density and dishing Paction.
| |
| : 4. No credit is taken for any natural enrichment or reduced enrichment axial blankets.
| |
| : 5. No credit is taken for any U'i or U i6in the fuel.
| |
| 6.. No credit is taken for any spacer grids or spacer sleeves.
| |
| The IFBA absorber material is a zirconium diboride (ZrBJ coating on the fuel pellet.
| |
| Each IFBA rod has a nominal poison material loading of 1.67 milligrams B'er inch, which is the minimum standard loading offered by Westinghouse for 14x14 OFA fuel assemblies.
| |
| : 8. The IFBA B'oading is reduced by 5 percent to conservatively account for manufacturing tolerances and then by an additional 10% to conservatively model a minimum poison length of92 inches.
| |
| : 9. The moderator is pure water (no boron) at a temperature of68'F with a density of 1.0 gmlcmi.
| |
| : 10. The array is infinite in lateral (x and y) and axial (vertical) extent. This precludes any neutron leakagePom the array.
| |
| "Figure 8 [ed. note: Figure 8 is fully reproduced at the end of this text] ... shows the constant K> contour generated for the Region 1 spent fuel racks. Note the endpoint at 0 IFBA rods where the nominal enrichment is 4.0 w/o and at 64(IX) IFBA rods where the nominal enrichment is 5.0 w/o. The interpretation ofthe endpoint data is as follows: the reactivity ofthe fuel rack array when filled withfuel assemblies enriched to a nominal 5.0 w/o U'ith each containing 64(1.0X) IFBA rodsis equivalent to the reactivity ofthe rack when filled withfuel assemblies enriched to a nominal 4.0 w/o and containing no IFBAs.
| |
| The data in Figure 8 ... is also provided on Table 7 [ed. note: Table 7 is fully reproduced at the end of this text] ... for the 1.0X 1.5Xand 2.0XIFBA rods.
| |
| "It is important to recognize that the curve in Figure 8 ... is based on reactivity
| |
| 'equivalence calculations for the specific enrichment and IFBA combinati ons in actual rack geometry (and not just on simple comparisons of individual fuel assembly infinite multiplicationfactors). In this way, the environment ofthe storage rack and its influence on assembly reactivity is implicitlyconsidered.
| |
| "The IFBA requirements ofFigure 8 ... were developed based on the standard IFBA patterns used by Westinghouse. However, since the worth ofindividual IFBA rods can change depending on position within the assembly (due to local variations in thermal flux),
| |
| studies were performed to evaluate this effect and a conservative reactivity margin was includedin the development ofthe IFBA requirement to account for this egect. This assures that the IFBA requirement remains valid at intermediate enrichments where standard IFBA 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 362
| |
| | |
| C' I patterns may not be available. In addition, to conservatively account for calculational uncertainties, the IFBA requirements of Figure 8 ... also include a conservatism of approximately 10% on the total number ofIFBA rods at the 5.0 w/o end (i.e., about 6 extra IFBA rods for a 5.0 w/o fuel assembly).
| |
| "Additional IFBA credit calculations were performed to examine the reactivity effects of higher IFBA linear B" loadings (1.5Xand 2.0X). These calculations confirm that assembly reactivity remains constant provided the net B'aterial per assembly is preserved.
| |
| Therefore, with higher IFBA B'oadings, the required number ofIFBA rods per assembly be reduced by the ratio ofthe higher loading to the nominal 1.0Xloading. For example,
| |
| 'an using 2.0XIFBA in 5.0 w/o fuel assemblies allows a reduction in the IFBA rod requirement Pom 64 IFBA rods per assembly to 32 IFBA rods per assembly (64 divided by the ratio 2.0X/1.0X).
| |
| "4.2.2 Infinite Multiplication Factov "The infinite multiplicationfactor, K is used as a reference criticality reactivity point, and offers an alternative methodfor determining the acceptability offuel assembly storage in the I
| |
| Region spent fuel racks. The reference Kis determined for a nominal fresh 4.0 w/o fuel assembly.
| |
| "The fuel assembly Kcalculations are performed using the Westinghouse licensed core design code PHOENIX-Pin~. The following assumptions were used to develop the infinite multiplicationfactor model:
| |
| The 8'estinghouse 14x14 OFA fuel assembly was analyzed (see Table 1 [ed. note:
| |
| Table 43-1].... forparameters). The fuel assembly is modeled at its most reactive point in life and no credit is taken for any discrete burnable absorbers in the assembly.
| |
| : 2. Allfuel rods contain uranium dioxide at a nominal enrichment of4.0 w/o U over the entire length ofeach rod.
| |
| : 3. The fuel array model is based on a unit assembly configuration (infinite in the lateral and axial extent) in Ginna reactor geometry (no rack).
| |
| : 4. The moderator is pure water (no boron) at a temperature of68 'F with a density of 1.0 gmlcm'.
| |
| "Calculation of the infinite multiplication factor for the 8'estinghouse 14x14 OFA fuel assembly in the Ginna core geometry resulted in a reference Kof1.458. This includes a 1%
| |
| dK reactivity bias to conservatively account for calculational uncertainties. This bias is consistent with the standard conservatism included in the Ginna core design refueling shutdown margin calculations.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 363
| |
| | |
| "For IFBA credit, all 14x14 fuel assemblies placed in the Region I spent fuel racks must comply with the enrichment-IFBA requirements ofFigure 8... or have a reference Kless or equal to 1.458. By meeting either ofthese conditions, the maximum rack reactivity will then be less than 0.95,... "
| |
| "BibliogrupIIy
| |
| : 11. Nguyen, T.Q. et.al., "Qualification ofthe PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized 8'ater Reactor "
| |
| Cores, %CAP-I 1596-P-A, June 1988 PVestinghouse Proprietary).
| |
| : 15. Davidson, SL., et. al, "VANTAGE 5 Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report, Addendum I, " 8'CAP-10444-P-A, March 1986. "
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 364
| |
| | |
| Table 7 Ginna Region 1 Spent Fuel Rack IFBA Requirement Nominal 1.0X(1.67 mgJin) I.SX(2.51 mgKin) 2.0X(3.34 mgPin)
| |
| Enrichment (wlo) IFBA Rods in IFBA Rods in IFBA Rodsin Assembly Assembly Assembly 4.0 4'.5 32 24 16 5.0 32 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 365
| |
| | |
| Figure 8 Ginna Region I Spent Fuel Rack IFBA Requirement 50 1.0X IFBA Loading 1.5X IFBA Loading 30 2.0X IFBA Loading CC 20 10 4 4.1 42 43 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 Nominal U Enrichment, Wt%
| |
| [ed. note: End of material from reference 4.13]
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 366
| |
| | |
| ==4.5 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| 4.1 ANSUANS 57.2 - 1983, "Design Requirements for Light Water Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Facilities at Nuclear Power Plants," approved October 1983.
| |
| 4.2 American National Standard, "Validation of Calculational Methods for Nuclear Safety Illy S f ty," ~NI N C
| |
| 4.3 NRC Standard Review Plan NUREG-0800, SRP 9.1.2, "Spent Fuel Storage," Rev. 3, July 1981.
| |
| 4.4 USNRC Position Paper - "OT Position for Review and Handling Application," April 14, 1978, revised January 18, 1979.
| |
| 4.5 USNRC Reg. Guide 1.13, "Spent Fuel Storage Facilities Design Basis," Proposed Rev.2, published Dec. 1981.(Provides supplementary information relative to ANS 57.2) 4.6 ANSI N16.1-1975, "American National Standard for Nuclear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors."
| |
| 4.7 'SCALE 4.2, Modular Code System for Performing Standardized Computer Analyses for Licensing Evaluation," NUIT/CR-0200, Revision 4, November 1993, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
| |
| 4.8 "CASMO-3, A Fuel Assembly Burnup Program," STUDSVIK/NFA-89/3, November 1989, Studsvik of America Inc.
| |
| 4.9 'SCALE 4.3, Modular Code System for Performing Standardized Computer Analyses for Licensing Evaluation for Workstations and Personal Computers," Volume 3, Section M4, NUREG/CR-0200, Revision 5, September 1995, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (Note the revised library released in May 1996 was used for the analysis).
| |
| 4.10 Docket 50-302, Florida Power Corporation, Letter &om P.M. Beard, FPC, " Updates Shooly Evaluation and Replaces Attachment 3 with a Nonproprietary Version of Report BAW-2209, Rev 1. 'Crystal River Unit 3 Spent Fuel Storage Pool B Criticality Analysis,'er discussions with NRC re FPC 950126 Application," March 9, 1995. Note: BAW-2209, R01(95/02/28) is contained in Doc. 83104, pp 091-171.
| |
| 4.11 R.J. Nodvik, "Evaluation of Mass Spectrometric and Radiochemical Analysis of Yankee Core 1 Spent Fuel," WCAP-6068, March 1966, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA 15230.
| |
| 4.12 R.J Nodvik, et al, "Supplementary Report on Evaluation of Mass Spectrometric and Radiochemical Analysis of Yankee Core 1 Spent Fuel, Including Isotopes of Elements Thorium Through Curium," WCAP-6086, Au gust 1969, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA 15230.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 367
| |
| | |
| 4.13 "Criticality Analysis of The R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Fresh and Spent Fuel Racks, and Consolidated Rod Storage Canisters," dated June 1994, Attachment A of Letter R.C.
| |
| Mecredy, RGE, to A.R. Johnson, NRC,
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| "Technical Specification Improvement Program," Rochester Gas & Electric, Docket No. 50-244, May 5, 1995.
| |
| 4.14 "An Assessment of Boraflex Performance in Spent-Nuclear-Fuel Storage Racks," K.
| |
| Linquest and D.E. Kline, NP-6159, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1988.
| |
| 4.15 Letter R.C. Mecredy, RGE, to G. Vissing, US. NRC, "Response to NRC Generic Letter 96- .
| |
| 04, dated June 26, 1996;
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| Boraflex Degradation in Spent Fuel Pool Storage Racks,"
| |
| R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, October 24, 1996.
| |
| 4.16 "Amendment No. 181 To Facility Operation License No. NPF-3 (TAC No. M86933),"
| |
| Docket No. 50-346, Letter US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Toledo Edison Co.,
| |
| November 19, 1993. (Approval of an enrichment increase for the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 spent fuel storage pool).
| |
| 4.17 Ginna Technical Specifications, Section SR 3.2.1.1, Page B.3.2-6, Amendment 65.
| |
| 4.18 "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) - Request for License Amendment to Technical Specifications (TS) - Spent-Fuel Pool Storage Capacity Increase," Docket Numbers 50-327 and 50-328, 4/27/92.
| |
| 4.19 "North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 1, Technical Specifications," Docket No. 50-338, Amendment No. 178, 3/94.
| |
| 4.20 BAW-1484-7, "Critical Experiments Supporting Close Proximity Water Storage of Power Reactor Fuel," N. M. Baldwin, et al., July 1979.
| |
| 4.21 The UO, Criticals Data were obtained from the following:
| |
| 4.21a. S.R. Bierman, et al., "Critical Separation Between Subcritical Clusters of 2.35 wt%
| |
| ~'U Enriched UO, Rods in Water with Fixed Neutron Poisons," PNL-2438, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, October 1977.
| |
| 4.21b. S.R. Bierman, et al., "Critical Separation Between Subcritical Clusters of 4.31 wt%
| |
| 'U Enriched UO~ Rods in Water with Fixed Neutron Poisons," NUREG/CR-0073 (PNL-2615), Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, March 1978.
| |
| 4.21c. S.R. Bierman et al., "Criticality Experiments with Subcritical Clusters of 2.35 wt%
| |
| and 4.31 wt% ~'U Enriched UO, Rods in Water with Uranium or Lead Reflecting Walls," NUREG/CR-0796 (PNL-2827), Pacific Northwest Laboratory, April 1979.
| |
| 4.21d. R.I. Smith and G.J. Konzek, "Clean Critical Experiment Benchmarks for Plutonium Recycle in LWRs," EPRI NP-196, Vols I and II, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1976 and September 1978.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 368
| |
| | |
| F 4s '
| |
| | |
| 4.21e. E.G. Taylor et al., "Saxton Plutonium Program Critical Experiments for the Saxton Partial Plutonium Core," WCAP-3385-54, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Atomic Power Division, December 1965.
| |
| 4.22 The Mixed Oxide Criticals Data were obtained from the following:
| |
| 4.22a. R.I. Smith and G.J. Konzek, "Clean Critical Experiment Benchmarks for Plutonium Recycle in LWRs," EPRI NP-196, Vols I and II, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1976 and September 1978.
| |
| 4.22b. E.G. Taylor et al., "Saxton Plutonium Program Critical Experiments for the Saxton Partial Plutonium Core," WCAP-3385-54, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Atomic Power Division, December 1965.
| |
| 4.22c. S.R. Bierman, et al., "Criticality Experiments with Low Enriched UO, Fuel Rods in Water Containing Dissolved Gadolinium, PNL-4976, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, February 1984.
| |
| N 4.23 "International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments," Volume IV, LEU-COMP-THERM-002, "Low Enriched Uranium Systems, Water-Moderated U(4.31)O, Fuel Rods In 2.54-Cm Square-Pitched Arrays," NEA/NSC/DOC(95)03/IV, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris.
| |
| 4.24 "MCNP4, Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code System," using Continuous Energy ENDF/B-V cross sections.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 369
| |
| | |
| Table 4.1-1 Polynomial Generated for Spent Fuel Burnup vs Enrichment Requirements for the Region 1 Racks al! +t/~":+~U,':.':.~i.;".'i.";: I:'';;ll,:,>:Miiiiiiiui'ii":Bumiip '::,":,':.::MIniinuIri",Bu'rii'up',".,':,.,'',;,:
| |
| ;:.''-':::::::::!IIutiaj:'.Wt~/o':;23~V:::-':":.'i'-".''',:;:;::;.".:':!':,:::::'I(No'minal)':;.:'~$
| |
| ':'::;;;;:,!,:.:;:-:::'(NomInal) '::::::::;:":::;:!"::::: .."::".-:,::;:.:.,".:,-..:,:,::;.,:~GWd/mtU:,',:;:;;:,::",:,::,:,,:,~>, .:;::',:::::.';::i-',,:"": ::;~:;::;::;:". "'.".;;:,::.,'j,;',GWd/iiitV,.':::;::::;.,:,;::;.'":,"";:;:
| |
| 2.22 0.00 3.6 15.24 2.3 1.12 3.7 16.15 2.4 2.47 3.8 17.07 2.5 3.75 3.9 17.98 2.6 4.99 4.0 18.90 2.7 6.17 4.1 19.83 2.8 7.30 4.2 20.78 2.9 8.39 4.3 21.74 3.0 9.45 4.4 22.73 3.1 10.47 4.5 23.75 3.2 11.47 4.6 24.79 3.3 12.43 4.7 25.88 3.4 13.38 4.8 27.01 3.5 14.32 49 28.18 3.6 15.24 5.0 29.40 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 370
| |
| | |
| Table 4.1-2 Polynomial Generated Burnup vs Enrichment Requirements for the Region 2 Racks
| |
| '';:..::';:':Initial',-',::;:,:'::,': .'::."::,:i:,:"'.-:"',.':Miiiimuiii:::Buiiiup',::.,'GWdImtUIgj,:',i '':;,::":;::,;:,'Imtial,"-,,". ',:,'.-'.I'! Miiiimum'::Biiriiu'p,'":;GWd/mtU';:;'.':
| |
| :,';,%to/o';,~'.;~U . "'WtN' "U"'"
| |
| oiiiin'al '': ;::.:,'.:':::.'.:.:Bas'e':.:',.'.:'','".:'.''.'.".':::''::.',::'::,':Upp'er'".,";::j','':: >,",,.:;.',".,L''ow'e'r'',':;;"::,'".::,:
| |
| ! . oiniiial'.:5 ,j.';::;-'::;Uppe'r:'.':,,".i';': -'::::.:,:L"over':;i::: I 1.14 0.00 3.0 22.05 29.92 15.20 1.2 1.04 3.1 23.50 31.37 16.65 1.3 2.77 3.2 24.93 32.80 18.08 1.4 4.48 3.3 26.35 34.21 19.49 1.5 6.18 3.4 27.74 35.61 20.89 1.6 0.00 7.87 3.5 29.12 36.99 22.27 1.7 1.67 9.54 3.6 30.47 38.34 23.62 1.8 3.33 11.20 3.7 31.81 39.68 24.96 1.9 4.98 12.85 3.8 33.13 41.00 26.28 2.0 6.61 14A8 3.9 34.42 42.29 27.57 2.015 6.85 14.72 0.00 4.0 35.70 43.57 28.85 2.1 8.22 16.09 1.37 4.1 36.95 44.82 30.10 2.2 9.83 17.69 2.97 4.2 38.19 46.06 31.34 2.3 11.41 19.28 4.56 '4.3 39.40 47.27 32.55 2.4 12.98 20.85 6.13 44 40.59 48.46 33.74 2.5 14.53 22.40 7.68 4.5 41.76 49.62 34.90 2.6 16.07 23.94 9.22 4.6 42.90 50.77 36.05 2.7 17.59 25.46 10.74 4.7 44.02 51.89 37.17 2.8 19.10 26.96 12.24 4.8 45.12 52.99 38.27 2.9 20.58 28.45 13.73 4.9 46.20 54.07 39.35 3.0 22.05 29.92 15.20 5.0 47.25 55.12 40.40 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 371
| |
| | |
| I '%4*Qll't &0%1 I'
| |
| | |
| Table 4.1-3 KENO V.a Region 1 (Rack Type 3) Results of Burnup vs Enrichment Calculations
| |
| :.-'.,:::,:;:..."'':,:,:.,'::,Calculated ':.',,''';,""::,:",'>.'-;i-'".-:
| |
| ::Margin'-.To,':::
| |
| ',"i:G.'95,':'hkjj 4 wt% fresh/2.22 wt% at 0 GWd/mtU 0.91977 0.00072 0.94159 0.00841 4 wt% fresh /3 wt% at 9 GWd/mtU 0.91877 0.00069 0.94058 0.00942 4 wt% fresh/ 4 wt % at 18 GWd/mtU 0.92144 0.00070 0.94326 0.00674 4 wt% fresh/ 5 wt% at 28 GWd/mtU 0.91990 0.00068 0.94171 0.00829 a) K, is calculated with the formula listed in Section 4.3.7.1.1, i.e.,
| |
| where the values for b,k;, hk ,o, and o, are obtained from Table 4.3-12. For example, the K, for the 2.22 wt% assembly in rack Type 3 is E = 0.91977+0.00701+0.00133
| |
| + (1.763 +0.00072) +(1.763 +0.0009) +(0.01332)
| |
| = 0.94159 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 372
| |
| | |
| Table 4.1-4 KENO V.a Region 2 (Rack Types 1, 2, & 4) Results of Burnup vs Enrichment Calculations
| |
| ",I",''':,-:Il'Calciilat'ed:'::;':::!;;:::.",:.".: <<::Margiii; 0:95:I'M RackT e 1 Standard Ass s 5 wt% at 45 GWd/mtU,axial model, de raded rack model 0.93091 0.00059 0.94817 0.00183 4 wt% at 34 GWd/mtU, axial model, de raded rack model 0.92806 0.00061 0.94532 0.00468 3 wt% at 21 GWd/mtU, axial model, de raded rack model 0.92099 0.00058 0.93824 0.01176 5 wt% at 38.8 checkerboarded with 5 wt% at 55.2 GWd/mtU, de ded rack model, corrected to axial model 0.94375 0.00625 1.6 wt% fresh fuel, de raded rack model 0.92898 0.00056 0.94623 0.00377 4.0 wt% fresh fuel checker boarded with waterholes 0.92311 0.00078 0.94042 0.00958 Rack T e 2 Standard Ass s 5 wt% at 45 GWd/mtU axial model 0.91951 0.00058 0.93500 0.01500 4 wt% at 34 GWd/mtU axial model 0.91629 0.00057 0.93178 0.01822 3 wt% at 21 GWd/mtU axial model 0.90914 0.00057 0.92463 0.02537 1.6 wt% fresh fuel 0.91265 0.00054 0.92813 0.02187 Rack T e 4 Standard Ass s 5 wt% at 45 GWd/mtU axial model, degraded Type 1 rack 0.91718 0.00060 0.93190 0.01810 model 4 wt% at 34 GWd/mtU axial model, degraded Type 1 rack 0.91511 0.00060 0.92983 0.02017 model 3 wt% at 21 GWd/mtU axial model, degraded Type 1 rack 0.90751 0.00057 0.92778 0.02222
| |
| 'I model fresh 1.6 wt% fuel de raded T e 1 rack model 0.91077 0.00059 0.92548 0.02452 a) K, is calculated with the formula listed in Section 4.3.7.2.1, i.e.,
| |
| E = >,ff+~>gI+~>,+ (1 763*<,)'+(1.763*~(,I)'+(<g,I)'here the values for b,g;, hk ,o;, and o, are obtained from Table 4.3-12. For example, the K, rack Type .1 at 5 wt% at 45 Gwd/mtU is for E = 0.93091+0.00561+0.00358
| |
| + (1.763 +0.00059) +(1.763 +0.0009) +(0.00784)
| |
| = 0.94817 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 373
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-1 Fuel Assembly Parameters
| |
| ~jj'~",'::,""",;::.:;:,',;,w;:oFAI':':::'";'4~
| |
| Rods/Assy 179 179 179 Guide Tubes/Assy 16 16 16 Instrument Tubes/Assy IHM Wt, Kg/assy 370-374.5 383-398 349-356.5 Rod Pitch, in 0.556 0.556 0.556 Pellet OD, in 0.3565+0.0008 0.3669+0.0008 0.3444+0.0008 Pellet Density, %TD 95+2.0 95+2.0 95+2.0 Max Enrichment, wt%
| |
| no IFBAs 4.0+0.05 4.(H:0.05 4.0+0.05 with IFBAs 5.0~0.05 Pellet Dish Factor,% 1.187+2.0 1.187+2.0 1.1926+2.0 Active Fuel Lgth, in 141-144 141-144 141-144 Clad OD, in 0.424+0.0025 0.42&0.0025 0.400+0.0025 Clad Thickness, in 0.030+0.0025 0.0243+0.0025 0.0243+0.0025 Clad Material Zirc-4 Zirc-4 Zirc-4 Guide Tube OD, in 0.524+0.005 0.53&0.005 0.528+0.005 GT Thickness, in 0.015+0.0055 0.017+0.0055 0.019+0.0055 GT Material Zirc-4 Zirc-4 SS'.42&0.005 Inst. Tube OD, in 0.424+0.005 0.399+0.005 IT Thickness, in 0.039+0.004 0.024(H:0.004 0.0235+0.004 IT Material Zirc-4 SS Zirc-4 IFBA Number/Assy 0-64 Boron Loading, mg/in 1.67 - 3.34 a) Modeled conservatively as Zirc-4 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 374
| |
| | |
| ~ .- ~ ~
| |
| 3
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-2 Consolidation Canister Specifications Outer square dimension, in 8.0(H:0.02 Wall thickness, in 0.093+0.004 Height, in Including Lids at top/bottom 168+0.06 Without Lids at top/bottom 156 I/4+0.06 Canister lid height, in - top/bottom 5 7/8 Material of construction Body SS304 Lids SS304 Divider Plate SS304 Divider Plate Thickness, in 0.093+0.004 Centered Within, in 1/32 Length, in 153 5/16+0.06 Max rods/container 2x179 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 375
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-3a Region 1, Rack Type 3 Cell Dimensions Cell Pitch, cm(in) 23.45+0.2(9.2323) 23.45 Cell ID, cm(in) 20.68 +0.2/-0.1 (8.1418) 20.68 Wall Thickness, cm(in)
| |
| SS304L 0.2(H:0.018(0.0787) 0.20 BSS 0.25 +0.05/-0.0(0.0984) 0.25 Nominal gap, cm(in)/min 2.07(0.815)/1.95 2.07 Peripheral row BSS support min'.8(0.3228)
| |
| Belt plate width, cm(in) 0.8 SS thickness, cm(in) 0.20 +0.018(0.0787) 0.20 BSS Parameters BSS density, g/cc 7.73 -7.78 7.73 Boron content, wt% 1.7 min 1.7 "B wt% in natural boron 18.14 18.14 Plate length, in 145.7 144.0 a) A minimum tolerance of 1.85 cm is assumed for the analysis to provide additional margin for the Type 3 rack.
| |
| Table 4.3-3b Region 1, Rack Type 3 Damaged Fuel Cell Dimensions
| |
| 'i: ': "-"'l%:iii:::i:i:::;"'~$''":c:"vii:DescI'I lDest fton';:"."~xiii"'.":.g":i':""%j'ij.~i~gpjp '::."::.":.kl~-':::-":i':.!''":.'.:'.'::'::i."";: 'ri:::Dimen's'tons"':.",!.'!.,'::i:.::::::::::::,':':>.,'4k~>'.::!,:'j:.;l Cell Pitch, cm(in) 23.45+0.2(9.2323)
| |
| Cell ID, cm(in) 22.1 +0.2/-0.1(8.701)
| |
| Wall Thickness, cm(in)
| |
| SS304L 0.&0.018(0.0787)
| |
| BSS 0.30 +0.05/-0.0(0.1181)
| |
| Nominal Gap, cm(in)/minimum Between damaged cells 0.55(0.2165)/ 0.43 min Between damaged/normal cells 1.36(0.5354)/1.13 min BSS Parameters BSS density, g/cc 7.73 -7.78 Boron content, wt% 1.7 min
| |
| 'OB wt% in natural boron 18.14 Plate length, in 145.7 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 376
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-4 Region 2, Rack Type 1 Cell Dimensions k>'.::.YFlDe'si 'n::::Dimeiision's"':!'!>':.'-..-,'-': l':::iModel'Diiiiensio'n's''.'''-."
| |
| Cell Pitch, in +0.06/-0.0 8.43 Cell ID (without poisons), in 8.25 +0.06/-0.0, square 8.25 Wall Thickness, in 0.09 + 0.004 0.09 Wall Material SS-304 SS-304 SS Poison support sheet thickness, in 0.062 + 0.003 0.062 Cell ID with poison, in 8.113 8.113 Boraflex Poison, g/cm'.43 length, in 144 + 1/16 width, in 7.625 + 0.0625 thickness, in 0.075 + 0.007 144'.33'.038'.020
| |
| ' Self Shielding Bias +0.0014 Min "B content, 0.020 a) Boraflex shrinkage/degradation model includes a 12" gap in length randomly positioned, within the central 132" of the plate, a 8% width shrinkage, and a 50% loss in thickness.
| |
| Table 4.3-5 Region 2, Rack Type 2 Cell Dimensions
| |
| ','~","::i."::.'';-;:~,': -';:".g::::,::.:::!;<,"'..Des'cri" tion'I'!!".i.'',%<i'.".'ell
| |
| :"Model';Dimensions!
| |
| Pitch, cm(in) 21.41&0.2(8.43) 21.412 Cell ID, cm(in) 20.68 +0.2/-0.1(8.1418) 20.68 Wall Thickness, cm(in)
| |
| SS304L 0.2 + 0.018(0.0787) 0.2 BSS 0.3 +0.05/-0.0(0.1181) 0.3 Nominal Gap, cm(in)/minimum 0.232(0.0913)/0.15 min 0.232 BSS Parameters BSS density, g/cc 7.73 -7.78'.7 7.73 Boron content, wt% min 1.7 "B Wt% in natural boron 18.14 18.14 Plate length, in 145.7 144.0 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 377
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-6 Region 2, Rack Type 4 Cell Dimensions Cell Pitch, cm(in) 21.412+0.2(8.43) 21.412 Cell ID, cm(in) 20.68 +0.2/-0.1 (8.1418) 20.68 Wall Thickness, cm(in)
| |
| SS304L 0.2 & 0.018(0.08) 0.2 BSS 0.25 +0.05/-0.0(0.10) 0.25 Nominal gap thickness, cm(in) between Type 4 cells (nominal/min) 0.082(0.03228)/0.03 min 0.082 between Type 4 and rack Type 1 3.0(1.18) min 3.0 between Type 4 and pool wall 13.334(5.25) min 13.334 BSS Parameters BSS density, g/cc 7.73 -7.78 7.73 Boron content, wt% 1.7 min 1.7 "B Wt% in natural boron 18.14 18.14 Plate length, in 145.7 144.0 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 378
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-7 Material Compositions for Non-Fuel Regions Material Compositions for Stainless Steel SS304L (p = S.O g/cc)
| |
| ~le i~n RQdkK1 Cr W'.180 1.66779E-2 Mn 0.020 1.753 87E-3 Fe 0.720 6.21117E-2 Ni 0.080 6.56661E-3 Material Compositions for Borated Stainless SS304 B6 (p = 7.73 g/cc)
| |
| P~lemgg Wei htFrac i Qgg/~c Cr 0.180 1.61151E-2 Mn 0.020 1.69468 E-3 Fe 0.663 5526419E-2 Ni 0.120 9.51448E-3 B 0.017 7.31794E-3 Material Compositions for Zircaloy-4 (p = 6.56 g/cc)
| |
| Qlem~ef We h Fracti ggDL/~c Zl 0.9829 4.25652E-2 Sn 0.0140 4.65903E-4 Fe 0.0021 1.48550E-4 Cr 0.0010 7.59770E-S Material Compositions for Boraflex (p = 1.7g/cc)
| |
| ~lem~rg eih r H 0.030 3.04701E-2 lOB 0.0618 6.31428E-3 I lB 0.2751 2.55761E-2 C 0.190 1.61945 E-2 0 0.220 1.408 12E-2 Si 0.2232 8.13601E-3 Material Compositions for Water and Concrete KENO V.a Standard Compositions @T= 293'K Density of Water = 1.0 g/cc 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 379
| |
| | |
| 0 0
| |
| ~ ' all !
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-8 Fuel Material Number Densities KENO V.a Fresh Fuel Standard Composition Parameters Wt% "'U 1.6 2.22 4.0 Axial Burnup Region Number Densities for 5.0 Wt% Initial Enrichment Fuel At 45 GWd/mtV Average Burnup, Atom/b-cm
| |
| >>j';::,,'L'evel 'j':
| |
| 21.97 6.5805E-04 4.6040E-02 9.1978E-05 2.1400E-02 1.1504E-07 36.60 4.2226E-04 4.6040E-02 1.2979E-04 2.1 136E-02 1.1678E-07 45.11 3.1547E-04 4.6040E-02 1.4412E-04 2.0952E-02 1.1550E-07 49.15 2.7799E-04 4.604 0E-02 1.493 7E-04 2.0864E-02 1.20 08E-07 42.12 3.6395E-04 4.6040E-02 1.398 8E-04 2.1002E-02 1.3026E-07 33.55 4.6717E-04 4.6040E-02 1.2524E-04 2.1176E-02 1.293 1E-07 20.11 6.988 8E-04 4.6040E-02 8.6650E-05 2.1431E-02 1.243 8E-07 Avera e 45 3.2281E-04 4.6040E-02 1.4409E-04 2.095 8E-02 1.2364E-07
| |
| :;:::,,':L'ev'el;::.':,'. ;'.,'3'u'r'n'u'p ':.:":;::
| |
| :.':::i:.''".:::.,'::i,~,',P'u.'':::..""''.:,,','i:;'::;,'vera 21.97 1.1721E-04 2.5577E-05 1.3166E-05 1.4923 E-05 36.60 1.3755E-04 4.5800E-05 2.7853 E-05 2.3099E-05 45.11 1.4105E-04 5.5424E-05 3.4953 E-05 2.6417E-05 49.15 1.4550E-04 6.0421 E-05 3.8844E-05 2.8880E-05 42.12 1.498 8E-04 5.4273 E-05 3.4922 E-05 2.6902E-05 33.55 1.441 8E-04 4.443 0E-05 2.744 6E-05 2.2480E-05 20.11 1.1854E-04 2.3898E-05 1.2260E-05 1.4145 E-05 e 45 1.4492E-04 5.6043 E-05 3.6072E-05 3.2281 E-04 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 380
| |
| | |
| 'l lh
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-9 Assembly Tolerance Penalties (hk)
| |
| )Manu'facturin'g'',,',; -'";','.':Th'eor'e'tical::.;-: '..'9IEiirichment,'"",:;:i'::> .',.";';''. St'a'tis'tie'al.':.",-"
| |
| '!a'0.'05,ivt%'ihE''::.'. -'9'Combiii'ation Westinghouse OFA 0.00266 0.00293 0.00419 0.00576 Westinghouse Standard 0.00303 0.00266 0.00408 0.00574 Exxon Standard 0.00303 0.00279 0.00413 0.00583 Table 4.3-10 Reactivity Uncertainty Associated With Fuel Assembly Type
| |
| ,;"j:;'."'jP;:.,'. ~PCASlVlO '3jk-'irifiriity.'.fo',a!'4'.%t%''Asse'mbty"',in'..Rack'Ty'pe.:1 0 1.13164 1.12100 1.13448 10 1.04405 1.03429 1.04584 20 0.96854 0.95816 0.96385 30 0.89811 0.88629 0.88318 Table 4.3-11 Consolidation Container Results
| |
| ,::ee,':Fuel'::As';.',:,I>':
| |
| Rack Type 1 1.6 196 Standard 0.92765 0.00058 0.94490 1.6 225 OFA 0.92534 0.00054 0.94259 Rack Type 2 1.6 196 Standard 0.91538 0.00058 0.93087 1.6 225 OFA 0.91196 0.00057 0.92745 Rack Type 3 2.22 196 Standard 0.92307 0.00074 0.94489 2.22 196 OFA 0.92169 0.00072 0.94351 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 381
| |
| | |
| J Table 4.3-12 Summary of Rack Type Uncertainties, Penalties, And Credits
| |
| :.:;:.:.Region:
| |
| '.",:..':'iType'3::,:.::.:,'::,'-":,r,-:"''..Type.il~,::,:;::j> '::.,:,'P;::;Typ'e'.2:::,~-.:';) ";'.,7'~Typ'e 4-'.::i'::,
| |
| Methodolo Bias dk Calculational Penalties b,k - KENO.V.a Bias 44 Grou 0.00701 0.00561 0.00561 0.00561 Penalties:
| |
| Pool Temperature Penalty (50 to 212'F), 0.00133 0.00218 0.00207 0.00207 Boraflex B10 Self Shielding Penalty 0.00000 0.00140 0.00000 0.00000 Assy Off-Center Placement Penalty
| |
| -sumof enalties
| |
| ~I~
| |
| 0.00133 KHHHm 0.00358 KQKQQ 0.00207 KQEHQ 0.00290 Total=hk. +b, 0.00834 0.00919 0.00768 0.00851 Tolerance Uncertainties and Statistical Uncertainties Tolerance Uncertainties:
| |
| Fuel Assy Manufacturing Tolerance 0.00583 0.00583 0.00583 0.00583 Rack Fabrication Tolerance
| |
| - sum of tolerance uncertainties KEJ2E QJHKl4 EQM4H 59M' 0.01332 0.00784 0.00758 0.00590 o - Calculational Uncertain 0.00070 0.00070 0.00070 0.00070 o . - Methodolo Bias Uncertaint 0.00090 0.00090 0.00090 0.00090 Total Statisticall Combined 0.01348 0.00809 0.00784 0.00624 Total ad'ustment to 0.02182 0.01728 0.01552 0.01475 a) Based upon a typical sigma of 0.0007 for 1,000,000 neutron histories for KENO V.a cases.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 382
| |
| | |
| Table 4.3-13 Region 1, Rack Type 3, Dropped Assembly Accident Results Rack T e 3 T-bone 0.0017 & 0.0018 Rack Type 3 Misplaced assembly 0.0114 + 0.0015 Rack T e 3 Dee Dro Accident 0.0008 & 0.0018 Rack T e 2/3 Side Dro 0.0393 + 0.0016 Side Dro with 300 m Boron -0.0222 + 0.0017 Table 4.3-14 Region 2, Rack Types 1, 2, &, 4, Dropped Assembly Accident Results Rack T e2 T-bone 0.0079 + 0.0015 Rack T e 2 Mis laced Assembl 0.0097 + 0.0015 Racks T e 2 8'c 4 Dee Dro 0.0008 + 0.0018 Accident'ack T e 1 Mis laced Assembl - Lower Curve 0.0469 & 0.0013 Rack T e 1 Mis laced Ass,450 m Boron, Base -0.0196 & 0.0014 Rack T e 1 Dee Dro Accident 0.0469 + 0.0013 a) Same as deep drop for rack Type 3 since base plate contruction is similar.
| |
| b) Bounded by the Rack Type 1 misplaced assembly accident.
| |
| Table 4.3-15 Seismic Event Accident Results Rack T es 2 and 3 0.0043 + 0.0026 Rack T es 1, 2A, 8'c 4C 0.0085 + 0.0026 Rack Types 1, 3A, 8c 4F 0.0045 6 0.0026 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 383
| |
| | |
| Table 4.4-1 KENO V.a BIAS vs Separation Distance M
| |
| LA ';:'';;Case':;,'" ;.','.:Coie : '::
| |
| Spacirig,'"i'',:;::;:1B4C'""". ';"''Bor'oii'-': .',P.lates'.'..'.;:::::,',;::;;:,.;.',';;" Calculated';"',':; -'::>>. '=':.',."; Experiin'ental:":;:;:;-;
| |
| ::::::.".-,",.Pins:;-;-.';
| |
| 00 8 O 0 0.9965 0.0010 1.0002 0.0005 -0.0037 Q.QO 1037 0.9982 0.0006 1.0001 0.0005 -0.0019 1.64 0 764 0.9996 0.0006 1.0000 0.0006 -0.0004 84 0 0.9952 0.0010 0.9999 0.0006 -0.0047 3.27 64 0 0.9959 0.0010 1.0000 0.0007 -0.0041 Vl 64 0 1.0066 0.0010 1.0097 0.0012 -0.0031 VII 4.91 34 0 0.9946 0.0009 0.9998 0.0009 -0.0052 vni 4.91 34 0 1.0015 0.0010 1.0083 0.0012 -0.0068 6.54 0 0 0.9943 0.0007 1.0030 0.0009 -0.0087 10 4.91 143 None 0.9950 0.0006 1.0001 0.0009 -0.0051 XI 1.64 514 SS 0.9956 0.0006 1.0000 0.0006 -0.0044 12 XII 3.27 217 SS 0.9937 0.0006 1.0000 0.0007 -0.0063 13 Xnl 1.64 15 1.614%B/AL 0.9949 0.0010 1.0000 0.0010 -0.0051 14 XIV 1.64 92 1 257%B/AL 0.9942 0.0010 1.0001; 0;0010 -0.0059 15 Xv 1.64 395 0 401%B/AL 0.9906 0.0009 0.9998 '.0014 -0.0092 16 XVI 3.27 121 0.401%B/AL 0.9892 0.0009 1.0001 0.0019 -0.0109 17 Xvn 487 0.242% B/AL 0.9932 0.0004 1.0000 0.0010 -0.0068 18 Xvni 3.27 197 0.242%B/AL 0.9929 0.0004 1.0002 0.0011 -0.0073 19 XIX 1.64 634 0.100%B/AL 0.9955 0.0004 1.0002 0.0010 -0.0047 20 3.27 320 0.100%B/AL 0.9942 0.0005 1.0003 0.0011 -0.0061 21 4.91 72 0.100%B/AL 0.9918 0.0005 0.9997 0.0015 -0.0079 Avera e 0.9954 1.0010 -0.0056 Standard Deviation 0.0038 0.00?7 Q.0024
| |
| | |
| g tA Table 4.4-2 Additional UO, Critical Experiment Comparisons g
| |
| :::,;.':-.';;:;;,'".i'-';-.Calc'ulafe'd'.,;:":-::,::.,::.;.'.,; j:-':-'.'Bias";..':,'~
| |
| :.':Case',.'::,-:. (Ca'se"ID.":;;::,
| |
| OO 2438x05 No Absorber Plates 2.35 0 0.9968 0.0009 -0.0032 2438x17 Boral Absober Plates 2.35 0 0.9961 0.0009 -0.0039 2438x28 Stainless Steel Absorber Plates 2.35 0 0.9958 0.0010 -0.0042 2615x14 Stainless Steel Absorber Plates 4.31 0 0.9979 0.0011 -0.0021 2615x23 Cadmium Absorber Plates 4.31 0 0.9995 0.0011 -0.0005 2615x31 Boral Absober Plates 4.31 0 0.9987 0.0011 -0.0013 O 3314a 0.226 cm Boraflex Absorber Plates 4.31 0 1.0027 0.0011 0.0027'.0016 3314b 0.452 cm Boraflex Absorber Plates 4.31 0 1.0016 0.0011 e196u6n 0.615" Pitch 2.35 0 0.9951 0.0010 -0.0049 10 e ru615b 0.615" Pitch 2.35 464 0.9947 0.0010 -0.0053 e ru75 0.750" Pitch 2.35 0 0.9943 0.0010 -0.0057 12 e ru75b 0.750" Pitch 2.35 568 0.9986 0.0008 -0.0014 13 e196u87c 0.870" Pitch 2.35 0 0.9976 0.0009 -0.0024 14 e ru87b 0.870" Pitch 2.35 286 0.9999 0.0008 -0.0001 15 saxu56 2 Lattice Pitches,SS Clad, 0.56" Pitch 5.74 0 0.9950 0.0011 -0.0050 16 saxu792 2 Lattice Pitches,SS Clad, 0.792" Pitch 5.74 0 0.9988 0.00B1- -0.0012 Avera e = .9977 --0.0023 Standard Deviation = 0.0025 0.0025
| |
| | |
| Table 4.4-3 Mixed Oxide Critical Experiment Comparisons 4 ch QO
| |
| ,:::;.:,:Ci'se''.,'::.:..:-:,'", "'',;;:";:,Ca'se'."ID;:;:::;::,::;:;;, ',-:',:;-:."', ''-:,:;:.";::;";-,',Case. Desciiption':,',",'::;-:,"i'-';:;k,,:"::;::i."',"';::;"::::,':,::;:.::.-'''::;:
| |
| ::::So'r'o'n'piii';-,'',:.::-':::".,::::.Calc'iilated';",:::,',"',:
| |
| e ri70un UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.700" Pitch 0 0.9969 0.0011 -0.0031 0.0011 e ri70b UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.700" Pitch 681 1.0008 0.0010 0.0008 0.0010 e ri87un UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.870" Pitch 2 0 1.0018 0.0011 0.0018 0.0011 e ri87b UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.870" Pitch 1090 1.0083 0.0009 0.0083 0.0009 e ri99un UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.990" Pitch 0 1.0051 0.0009 0.0051 0.0009 e ri99b UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.990" Pitch 2 767 1.0072 0.0009 0.0072 0.0009 O saxton52 UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.52" Pitch 6.6 0 1.0001 0.0011 0.0001 0.0011 saxton56 UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.56" Pitch 6.6 0 0.9993 0.0011 -0.0007 0.0011 saxtn56b UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.56" Pitch 6.6 337 1.0006 0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 10 saxtn792 UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.792" Pitch 6.6 0 1.0031 0.0011 0.0031 0.0011 saxtn735 UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 0.735" Pitch 6.6 0 1.0010 0.0012 0.0010 0.0012 12 saxtn104 UO2/Pu02 S uare Lattice, 1.04" Pitch 6.6 0 1.0036 0.0011 0.0036 0 001'1 Avera e 1.0023 0.0023 Standard Deviation 0.0033 0.0033
| |
| | |
| Table 4.4-4 International Handbook Critical Experiments
| |
| .";:,:-'j:-:.'":,KErNO.:IV,:aI"':.,44.';.Gr'up".,Cr'oss::,.:':.';.'..'"..:;-;
| |
| 8poa'cIii'g'::Between': ';::':::.::::jii:MOPi;::::;:::;:::::,'"""<'."",'Co'ri't'iniih'u's",':;".'"i
| |
| ;:.",::"hk::KENO,,':;V;.'a,':,''.
| |
| ; ';;Fu'ei:A'rr'ay's','",.".'i', .-::27,,:',Gro'uop.'Cr'o'ss',: .':-;.';j::.'Hanodb'ook-;::::":'.,';,'' :."!
| |
| :::j'hajj;':Sections,:;;:~P'~i'.,'j -,:';"i!.'-:;:i Criticais.'I:','.',,''.::
| |
| 0 -0.0084 -0.0011 -0.0039 8'&%.'Cr'itic'als.'0.0019 4.46 -0.0079 -0.0030 -0.0048 6.39 -0.0108 -0.0028 -0.0072 7.57 -0.0092 -0.0077 -0.0068 8.01 -0.0067 -0.0043 -0.0040 8.41 -0.0110 -0.0042 -0.0060 10.05 -0.0036 -0.0006 -0.0042 11.92 -0.0094 -0.0021 -0.0042 0
| |
| 1.636 -0.0004 4.907 -0.0051 6.54 -0.0087 Table 4.4-5 CASMO-3/KENO V.a Benchmark Configurations
| |
| ::;~':,::::;;-:.::::;Core",;:;::.,';;::,;: ,'i!Mod)To'mph:::,:!:,.',:j:':,,:;tiprPM ',Bo'roii'i::5
| |
| '".'j;,;.",.''".','n::::.',:.".::,,"::,':.,';-",'.aaj'; ':;,",,',i,,':';;
| |
| 1.636 18.0 764 IX 6.54 17.5 0 XIII 1.636 A1, 1.614 wt%B 20.0 15 XVI 3.272 Al, 0.401 wt%B 17.5 121 4.907 Al, 0.100 wt%B 16.5 72 XII 3.272 SS 26.0 217 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 387
| |
| | |
| Table 4.4-6 CASMO-3/KENO V.a Infinite Array Benchmark Comparison
| |
| ',"CA'SMO. 3 ) '",.':KENO'V.."'a:;,.'j~~ !:KENO'.'V."a.:,;, ',"'.:K'EN'O':V,".a''-,'-".--
| |
| ;.''~";.CA'SMO.-',3;.p.'.. ':'~.c",: ,.Bias"'-': UlSQ,'.
| |
| <."'';,'0.00045 1.12299 1.11758 + 0.00048 -0.00541 1.120236 IX 1.07976 1.07214 + 0.00059 -0.00762 -0.00874 1.096324 XIII 1.10406 1.09490 + 0.00063 -0.00926 -0.00509 1.103581 XVI 1.09909 1.09040 + 0.00061 -0.00869 -0.01086 1.104940 XXI 1.09151 1.08473 & 0.00060 -0.00678 -0.00787 1.095787 XII 1.10643 1.09701 + 0.00058 -0.00942 -0.00608 1.105645 a) K is the sum of k;<, the bias, and 1.763 times the sum of the squares of the uncertainies associated with the bias and k;,.
| |
| Table 4.4-7 CASMO-3/KENO V.a Infinite Array Benchmark Comparison j '::,.'CA'SMO.-".3!i Rack'': .KENO:::.V..:a-.;;~ ';,,:KENO,'::V. a",(-,
| |
| ;,Typ'e;",'.". ';,'gj4;.>'a'rÃy'i~",.;':, .";",',;",,';'."~,"R"',::"-';:,:+:;'1'a:-.:,";:j,:,-'y::: 4 j CASMO-'.3 ';:: lA'.:;.':Bia's::;::.';.':.":.','j T el 0.86548 0.86614 + 0.00054 0.00066 -0.0056 0.87359 T e2 0.90356 0.89964 + 0.00053 -0.00392 -0.0056 0.90708 T e3 0.91894 0.91060 & 0.00073 -0.00834 -0.0079 0.92054 a)K is the sum of k;, the bias, and 1.763 times the sum of the squares of the uncertainies associated with the bias and k;.
| |
| Table 4.4-8 KENO V.a Infinite to Finite Model Comparison 5<.'haik:: irifiiiite':.fiiiit'e ',';::;: ';k':,':5'5!'.::.:::.'."i:::.'1'o: ~::,':!'::i~-::::".::::::)8::,i Rack Type 1 0.0032 0.0008 Rack Type 2 BSS on Edge of Finite Model 0.00439 0.0008 No BSS on Edge of Finite Model 0.00645 0.0008 Rack Type 3 BSS on Edge of Finite Model 0.00661 0.0010 No BSS on Edge of Finite Model 0.00975 0.0010 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 388
| |
| | |
| Table 4.4-9 Ginna Fuel Assemblies Used for Axial Shape Evaluation
| |
| ?<':: <'p j''' '(c'<@jX<<<: '&'<<." >< '<q.'%?Ã ' j%'.?.';?'<<P ?,',. ': .i '? i'<?<g$
| |
| -'.; 'P<<." <R 0'<'?<<'""<<< <F> >~'<'0 )j'
| |
| << v'(
| |
| hoFuel "Asse'mbl ".<ID'i;'::,';,: ':.-::."~i:::::.":'.":,"A''.':T eÃ~;::::,;.'<!'::<.-';:,!FPP.';-:'.",::i:? 'cle:,ki%~5";: ","::":.:,<:; :."Sur'riu";-':.GYVd/mtU ':
| |
| A62 OFA, Blanket 21 15.19 A62 OFA, Blanket 22 27.21 A62 OFA, Blanket 23 33.97 A62 OFA, Blanket 26 48.48 D77 OFA, Blanket 24 12.96 D77 OFA, Blanket 25 27.87 D77 OFA, Blanket 26 44.11 C63 OFA, Blanket 23 12.88 C63 OFA, Blanket 24 27.08 C63 OFA, Blanket 25 39.67 C63 OFA, Blanket 26 45.03 C56 OFA, Blanket 23 14.22 C56 OFA, Blanket 24 27.62 C56 OFA, Blanket 25 32.30 C56 OFA, Blanket 26 37.51 E60 OFA, Blanket 25 15.65 E60 OFA, Blanket 26 34.42 Q16 ANF Std, No Blkt 14 10.72 Q16 ANF Std, No Blkt 15 23.01 Q16 ANF Std, No Blkt 16 33.53 Q16 ANF Std, No Blkt 17 44.84 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 389
| |
| | |
| Table 4.4-10 Relative Axial Shapes for Typical Non-Axial Blanket Standard Fuel Assemblies
| |
| " ':,:GWd/mtU='.:.",:,":.:'::~i: hi"ii!10i71'5'.>i'l:
| |
| ;:-:8:::.:;''Ass',";;Burnu ""$ 23'.011!=':!3::,"'''.':!33".'526'.i,:: :': '':i'4'4i844'"">'<
| |
| ;A's's "..JD,'8i'';C"'cle.''of-:Ir'r'adiatio'n,=.'..; 1'6";: '.,"1'4~:; 16..: "::15, 16::::
| |
| '' ''l6':.Q1'6.'::C '.::17;
| |
| "'-:-'';:-'; No'de':;:,:::';:.'.'",::,; .'':Heigh't,:.iii: ".Mrdpt,''''',:in'~ I::-;:::::;;::',::.-::.;'::,;'::;:;:.';!4~, j;.",.'-..:<:.':,::;.:","'j::: Relativ'e':3ui nu'pW-:.-'.''.,".:."::::,:-.':;.I.:::;:i'i,'!..':i.,::';;,;:;':,''
| |
| 6.15 3.075 0.490901 0.485724 0.472708 0.488181 12.30 9.225 0.806533 0.813611 0.806777 0.813375 18.45 15.375 0.987681 1.000956 0.997793 1.00252 24.60 21.525 1.074382 1.084308 1.082622 1.081126 30.75 27.675 1.112366 1.117726 1.116626 1.106949 36.90 33.825 1.127018 1.128938 1.12808 .1.113705 43.05 39.975 1.130751 1.130677 1.129869 1.113839 49.20 46.125 1.130098 1.128373 1.127602 1.111498 55.35 52.275 1.127298 1.12468 1.124023 1.108554 10 61.50 58.425 1.123472 1.120377 1.119967 1.105544 67.65 64.575 1.119832 1.116031 1.11591 1.102667 12 73.80 70.725 1.115912 1.111642 1.111853 1.099835 13 79.95 76.875 1.112086 1.107383 1 ~ 108036 1.097293 14 86.10 83.025 1.107699 1.102864 1.104098 1.094773 15 92.25 89.175 1.10294 1.09817 1.099922 1.092164 16 98.40 95.325 1.097154 1.092564 1.095031 1.089399 17 104.55 101.475 1.088661 1.084612 1.087872 1.08514 18 110.70 107.625 1.074382 1.071879 1.07606 1.077848 19 116.85 113.775 1.04797 1.04776 1.052914 1.062015 20 123.00 119.925 0.997107 1.000217 1.006144 1.025176 21 129.15 126.075 0.898553 0.903872 0.909622 0.936067 22 135.30 132.225 0.713299 0.714658 0.717413 0.745652 23 141.45 138.375 0.415119 0.41315 0A09473 0.446793 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 390
| |
| | |
| Table 4.4-11 Relative Axial Shapes for the Seven Zone Axial Model
| |
| :';:~"-:":i'A'ss':.'::Burnu","':.GWd/mtU'';='',,"!~~)i '';::;~10!715::'::::-'i;:;5;:!23!OXX:.:gA'. k':,":33 526I~":::;.: .".,".'.",."44'.844'':.;
| |
| 'A'ss ",.:'I5 4"'::, 'cle'of:Irr'adiafion',.=.:,':: 16: . '."1'4I '6':: ';:15::!':. 6',:..''i6'.'::: 1'6':: '.I17:
| |
| ::,'>2. NOde:;:.".: Height','::in",.:: Height::::cm: '';.::,:,';:;'::!,-:.'.15 15.621 0.491 0.486 0.473 0.488 12.30 31.242 0.807 0.814 0.807 0.813 18.45 46.863 0.988 1.001 0.998 1.003 125.55 318.897 1.099 1.098 1.099 1.092 131.70 334.518 0.899 0.904 0.910 0.936 137.85 350.139 0.713 0.715 0.717 0.746 144.00 365.760 0.415 OA13 0.409 0.447 Table 4.4-12 Axial Burnup Shapes for the Region 2 Loading Curve
| |
| ,I'Ass ';
| |
| Raitial Eiirichiiie'nt,"'::Wt%'':i'=.--,;";:;:I:::,':>"':
| |
| ;~'::,';:::::'.;:::! As's"''Biirnu"'$GWd/mtU:,.=;::.',::..-::-'.'-:'';i: i~",;21';00',>";!::;:::;:-'"::;34 00;;;:i.';'::: ':-'::>~'45.'00'.":-':.:
| |
| :::''",::No''de!:::,.'::'~,:::,:;::Height:,::;:'.in Heigh't, c'm'::';::::,'I:::,"'.":::.";:Node;Burnup",::,,GWd/mtU,',:::.:,:,:::,I:;:::,";:I 6.15 15.621 10.20 16.07. 21.97 12.3 31.242 17.09 27.43 36.60 18.45 46.863 21.02 33.92 45.11 125.55 318.897 23.06 37.37 49.15 131.7 334.518 18.98 30.93 42.12 137.85 350.139 15.01 24.39 33.55 144 365.76 8.68 13.92 20.11 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 391
| |
| | |
| k '<<>>,
| |
| Table 4.4-13 Irradiation Input Data and Isotopic Concentrations for 3 Wt /o Initial Enrichment Fuel at 21 GWd/mtU Burnup In Region 2
| |
| :<.".''".':Moderator.,:,",::
| |
| :"'Fuel:-;:I.".":~i';:::;::
| |
| ';.,''::::;:;Ij::..',".::,::;;.::,':.i,'"',::,:"~:..::;.j::j;::;:::i:
| |
| :;,,',.",Upp'pe'r',":,.,'.':Xo'ne',:Bi'irnu'p',"':,Teiiije'r'atiir'e,": Temp1era'tur'e,"" ;;;:;,CASMO-3:":"'':'Xou'e'::Po'w'er',':;.-:,';:.'-:.':,W/gU:;:i;:.'.,'i 15.621 10.20 805.94 557.70 15.52416 31.242 17.09 867.05 558.16 25.86533 46.863 21.02 928.16 558.35 31.88013 318.897 23.06 932.57 574.28 34.73219 334.518 18.98 887.60 590.85 29.76694 350.139 15.01 829.27 591.59 23.71172 365.760 8.68 770.94 592.07 14.20803 Axial Burnup Region Number Densities, Atom/b-cm
| |
| ;::,,':Bur'ri'u'p,","".
| |
| :::",:;::,';;:L''ev'el;;:,'::,":;:,;; "'."""",',siii""""
| |
| G%d/m'tU,
| |
| '""'.083 10.20 4.6345E-04 4.604 0E-02 4.0905 E-05 2.1987E-02 1E-OS 17.09 3.4726E-04 4.604 0E-02 6.0203 E-05 2.1827E-02 7.8726E-08 21.02 2.9213 E-04 4.6040E-02 6.8757E-05 2.1713E-02 8.1832E-08 23.06 2.6977E-04 4.6040E-02 7.2601E-05 2.1666E-02 8.6537E-08 18.98 3.2605E-04 4.6040E-02 6.4526 E-05 2.1765 E-02 8.8019E-OS 15.01 3.8452E-04 4.6040E-02 5.5108E-05 2.1878E-02 8.3 143 E-OS 8.68 4.9549E-04 4.6040E-02 3.6081E-05 2.202 5E-02 7.3 739E-OS Avera e 21 2.9541 E-04 4.6040E-02 6.8760E-05 2.1725E-02 8.4910E-OS
| |
| .-':Biirnu'p;"'-":;;:
| |
| '>,'='Le'vel,:":;::::,",''.'7.09 :GWdlmtU) 10.20 7.91 85E-05 1.375 0E-05 5.1063 E-06 6.4851E-06 1.0171E-04 2.6739E-05 1.3023E-05 1.0251E-05 21.02 1.0928E-04 3.3917E-05 1.7595 E-05 1.2369E-05 23.06 1.1414E-04 3.7909E-05 2.0480E-05 1.3609E-05 18.98 1.1053 E-04 3.1282E-05 1.6341E-05 1.1580E-05 15.01 1.0065E-04 2.3841E-05 1.1271E-05 9.3555E-06 8.68 7.4853 E-05 1.1527E-05 4.0172 E-06 5.763 5E-06 Avera e 21 1.1108E-04 3.4359E-05 1.8077E-05 1.2496 E-05 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 392
| |
| | |
| ~ I Table 4.4-14 Irradiation Input Data and Isotopic Concentrations for 4 Wt /o Initial Enrichment Fuel at 34 GWd/mtU Burnup in Region 2
| |
| ':33:';.~j;.:Fuel.~>~":"~~> <,'.:Mo'deratorj'; I'::::."CASMO 3'::::;:
| |
| Te'iii IZoi'ie':Poive'r,":
| |
| ITein'p'eratur'e'57.70 jer'ature,"'05.94 I.:','"';;W/gV 15.621 16.07 15.52416 31.242 27.43 867.05 558.16 25.86533 46.863 33.92 928.16 558.35 31.88013 318.897 37.37 932.57 574.28 34.73219 334.518 30.93 887.60 590.85 29.76694 350.139 24.39 829.27 591.59 23.71172 365.760 13.92 770.94 592.07 14.20803 Axial Burnup Region Number Densities, Atom/b-cm
| |
| ,,:Biirriup',":,;",:
| |
| ';.GWd/mtU.::
| |
| '.:,'!'.:'L'evel'::'-:,,"',;"'vera 16.07 5.6255E-04 4.6040E-02 6.5780E-05 2.1690E-02 9.3550E-OS 27.43 3.7849E-04 4.6040E-02 9.5834E-05 2.1467E-02 9.9113E-OS 33.92 2.9530E-04 4.6040E-02 1.0780E-04 2.1312E-02 1.003 3E-07 37.37 2.6207E-04 4.6040E-02 1.1286E-04 2.1237E-02 1.05 13E-07 30.93 3.4179E-04 4.6040E-02 1.0278E-04 2.1371E-02 1.1147E-07 24.39 4.3079E-04 4.6040E-02 8.9221E-05 2.1526E-02 1.0842 E-07 13.92 6.0756E-04 4.6040E-02 5.9153 E-05 2.1732E-02 9.9625E-08 e 34 2.9901E-04 4.6040E-02 1.0802E-04 2.1319E-02 1.0478E-07
| |
| <<i;,'L'ev'el";i:,':,-'""! turnup~ ".
| |
| .:,; @9Pu.:.:.;,'...,.,;,,';.+40Puw,,',;,.:.: .;:,.j:; 241Pu g,,:I(;g,.",,;~:~:IOB;, $ :;Q.
| |
| ;',',GWd/mtU;,';
| |
| 16.07 1.0013 E-04 2.0203E-05 9.213 9E-06 1.0533E-05 27.43 1.2273E-04 3.8390E-OS 2.1475E-05 1.6809E-05 33.92 1.2814E-04 4.7397E-05 2.7845 E-05 2.0217E-OS 37.37 1.32 83E-04 5.2374E-05 3.1720E-05 2.2295 E-05 30.93 1.3354E-04 4.4857E-05 2.6875F 05 1.9272E-05 24.39 1.2503E-04 3.4904E-05 1.973 1E-05 1.5624E-05 13.92 9.7316E-05 1.7494E-05 7.6889E-06 9.5098E-06 Avera e 34 1.3104E-04 4.8234E-05 2.8681E-05 2.0526E-05 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 393
| |
| | |
| f.
| |
| Table 4.4-16 Isotopic Concentrations for Fuel for Region 2 Auxilary Curves, Atom/b-cm Enrichmeiit," ''y'sunup~.",.".". ;''!"'149Sm,-
| |
| i"'",,::::,::i:,:%t:;,':lo):,":':-:,'j.'.0 i'GWdlm'tUI':I 52.2 2.4763 E-04 4.6040E-02 1.5282E-04 2.0832E-02 g'.1451E-07 5.0 38.8 4.0229E-04 4.6040E-02 1.3335E-04 2.1066E-02 1.2873 E-07 4.0 40.0 2.3482E-04 4.6040E-02 1.163 8E-04 2.1211E-02 1.0064E-07 4.0 29.1 3.5997E-04 4.6040E-02 9.9148E-05 2.1403 E-02 1.083 9E-07 3.0 25.0 2.4699E-04 4.6040E-02 7.6063E-05 2.1651E-02 8.4683 E-08 3.0 18.0 3.3627E-04 4.6040E-02 6.2279E-05 2.1778E-02 8.4126E-08 5.0 52.2 6.3354E-05 4.0144E-05 1.443 9E-04 3.1155E-05 5.0 38.8 4.8842E-05 3.0 860E-05 1.4294E-04 2.4623 E-05 4.0 40.0 1.3277E-04 5.5454E-05 3.3446E-05 2.3452E-05 4.0 29.1 1.2770E-04 4.1271E-05 2.4286E-05 1.803 7E-05 3.0 25.0 1.1583E-04 4.1120E-05 2.2419E-05 1.2589E-05 3.0 18.0 1.0576E-04 2.8949E-05 1.4549 E-05 9.8012E-06 Table 4.4-17 Average Isotopic Concentrations for Region 1 Loading Curve, Atom/b-cm
| |
| 'i:;";BuDlUp~',:.,'-,"
| |
| :::;,GWd/mtU;:,:;::
| |
| 3.0 4.8608E-04 4.6040E-02 3.6932E-05 2.1930E-02 7.5148E-05 4.0 18 5.2911E-04 4.6040E-02 7.1679E-05 2.1582E-02 1.0825 E-07 5.0 28 5.5621E-04 4.6040E-02 1.0952E-04 2.123 1E-02 1.3556E-07 3.0 1.1790E-05 4.1949E-06 7.6900E-08 6.0879E-06 4.0 18 2.3888E-05 1.1999E-05 1.0873E-04 1.2043 E-05 5.0 28 3.4759E-05 2.083 5E-05 1.3291 E-04 1.8966E-05 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 395
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| | |
| Table 4.4-19 Evaluation of Margin Provided by the Borafiex Degradation Model for Rack Type 1
| |
| """"'~@'''''""': "'Calciilated"'"i-"'-"::"'-''"::''-''"""'
| |
| '.::;:~,k":"~+::to:;-'
| |
| wt% at 45 GWd/mtU de raded rack model 0.91080 0.00051 0.0482+ o.0007 5 wt% at 45 GWd/mtU nominal rack model 0.86258 0.00053 4 wt% at 34 GWd/mtU de raded rack model 0.91188 0.00051 0.0476 6 0.0008 4 wt% at 34 GWd/mtU nominal rack model 0.86432 0.00056 3 wt% at 21 GWd/mtU de raded rack model 0.92397 0.00052 0.0490 + 0.0008 3 wt% at 21 GWd/mtU nominal rack model 0.87495 0.00055 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 397
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.1-1 Region 1 Spent Fuel Burnup vs Enrichment Curve Region 1 Spent Fuel Burnup Versus Enrichment Curve 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 45 5 Nominal Initial Enrichment, Wt%
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 398
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.1-2 Region 2 Burnup vs Enrichment Curve Region 2 Burnup Versus Enrichment Curve 60000 50000 40000 30000
| |
| ~
| |
| -.W--
| |
| Assys In Reeks Base Minus 10/o
| |
| --R--Plus 10%
| |
| 20000 10000 1 2 3 4 Nominal Initial Enrichm ent, wt%
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 399
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.1-3 Sketch of Allowable Loading Configurations for Region 1 F B 4-'A or Empty 4:A or Empty 4 A, B, F, or Empty Cell With Integral Cell Without Integral Lead-in Funnel Lead-in Funnel F = Fresh Fuel Assembly.
| |
| A = Fuel Assembly with Burnup and Enrichment in Area A of Figure 4.1-1.
| |
| B = Fuel Assembly with Burnup and Enrichment in Area B of Figure 4.1-1.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 400
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.1-4 Sketch of Allowable Loading Configurations for Region 2 A, A 4A>> A~, B, 4A>> Az, or Empty or Empty 4A, or Empty 4 Empty A, = Fuel Assembly with Burnup and Enrichment in Area A, of Figure 4.1-2.
| |
| A, = Fuel Assembly with Burnup and Enrichment in Area A, of Figure 4.1-2.
| |
| B Fuel Assembly with Burnup and Enrichment in Area B of Figure 4.1-2.
| |
| C = Fuel Assembly with Burnup and Enrichment in Area C of Figure 4.1-2.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 401
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-1 Giiina Spent Fuel Pool Configuration Rack Type 4 Region 2 Region 1 4D 4F RackT e3 Racks 3A, 3B, 3C, R3D Rack Type 1 Rack 3E Rack
| |
| ~Te 2 Racks 2A 8 2B 4A 4B 4C pool wall - concrete Rack Type 4 cask area L,
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 402
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3 Region 1 Type 3 Base Cell Structure for Infinite Model 23.45 cm 9.232" Q Fuel Assembly 9i88558 c Moderator re's4 Q Borated SS-304
| |
| '+
| |
| """'bl SS304 gg I
| |
| 23 45 cm (9.232")
| |
| $ ".j."f25'i 4 514 g
| |
| p -":1$.7:9.::c'm N .f4248': ):::
| |
| 2.07 cm (0.815")
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 403
| |
| | |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| Figure 4.3-3 Axial Profile of Finite And Infinite Base Models Water 12'(30AB cm)
| |
| Adat blanket Fuel assembly cel l44'(365.76 cm)
| |
| Axtat blanket Water 12'(30AB cm) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 404
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-4 Region 1 - Rack Type 3 Finite Model Elev. Void Boundary 3A 10xj 10x7 (Less 8 For Elevator Area) 3C iox5 3D 10x5 2B 3E llx9 10x7 Damaged Fuel Cells (5 Cells) 2A CASK A A llx8 irror Boundary 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 405
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-5 Region 2 Boraflex Rack (Type 1) - KENO V.a Model 0.062 +.003/-.003 0.09 +.004/-.004 (SS-304) 0.075 +.007/-.007 0.075
| |
| +.007/-.007 8.25 +.06/-.00 Orlgla of array 8.25 +.06/-.00 0.5 /////////// 8.43 +.06/-.00 7.625'/-.0025 8.113 6oraf lax SS-304 rr.113'.43 Qzi SS-304
| |
| +.06/-.00 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 406
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-6 Region 2 Borated Stainless Steel (Type 2) Racks - KENO V.a Model
| |
| -W[Q- 0.091" (.232 cm) 8.14" (20.68 cm) g 0.12"-
| |
| (0.3 cm) 0.079 "(0.2 cm)
| |
| Pool Water Borsted SS I 8.43" (21.412 cm)
| |
| Stainless Steel U
| |
| Spent pttei Assembly 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 407
| |
| | |
| J l . ~
| |
| IW )
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-7 Areas Modeled to Examine Interface Effects between Rack Types and Regions Rack Type 4D - 4F Ra kType3 Rack Type 1 Areas Modeled Rack Rack Type 3 Type 2 Rack Type 4A - 4C pool wall - concrete L, 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 408
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-8 KENO V.a Model Used to Examine Interface Effects between (I)
| |
| Rack Types 3C dk, 2B, and (2) Rack Types 2B & 3E Elcv. Void Boundary 3A Ioxj lox7 (Less 8 For Elevator Area) 3C Iox5 3D lox5 I
| |
| 2B 3E Ilx9 ) iox Damaged Fuel Cells 2A ASK A A Ilx8 '(.
| |
| 5
| |
| > 4+
| |
| irror Boundary Neutron Start Points at I& 2 and 3 4, 4 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 409
| |
| | |
| I Figure 4.3-9 KENO V.a Model Used to Examine Interface Effects between Rack Types 1, 4F, and 3A pool wall - concroto Rack T po 4F -10x1 C3j 2 3A Rack Typo 1 10x7 10 x 8 water 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 410
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-10 KENO V.a Model Used to Examine Interface Effects between Rack Types 1, 4C, and 2A Rack Type 1 10x8 2A 11x8 2
| |
| ack Type 4C -10x1 3 pool wall - concrete L,
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 411
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-11 KENO V.a Shallow Drop Accident Models Vertical Drop Accident Dropped Fuel Assembly T-Bone Accident Dropped Fuel Assembly
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| Active Fuel Region
| |
| ~ Reck Cells'1-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 412
| |
| | |
| ~ h 1 a/
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-12 KENO V.a Side Drop Accident Model Rack 3E I
| |
| Rack 2B Region 1 BSS Replaced by SS On Outer Faces Region 2 Dropped Fuel Assembly BSS Cell Cask Laydown Area 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 413
| |
| | |
| 0 I
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-13 KENO V.a Deep Drop Accident Model for Rack Types 2,3, and 4 Rack Cells ~
| |
| Displaced Fuel Assembly Hypothetical Base Plate Deformation 2.12" Displacement Rack Types 2, 3, dk, 4 Deep Drop Deformed Model 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 414
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-14 KENO V.a Region 1 Misplaced Assembly Model Misplaced A.ssembly t% Wt%
| |
| Fre A Fresh 4 Wt% 4 Wt% Wt%
| |
| Fresh resh Fresh Wt% 4 Wt%
| |
| Fresh '4'.,r',."ash Fresh Wt% 4 Wt% 4 Wt%
| |
| Fresh Fresh Fresh Wt% 4 Wt%
| |
| Fresh Fresh Region 1 Rack Type 3 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 415
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-15 KENO V.a Region 2 Misplaced Assembly Model Misplaced Assembly Al B Al B 'l B A B Al B Al B Al B Al B Al B A1 B Al Region 2 Rack Type j.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 416
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-16 KENO V.a Rack Type 1 Deep Drop Accident Model Dropped Assembly ]4tl S cnt Fuel Pool Floor Deep Drop Deformation For Rack Type 1 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 417
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.3-17 Sketch of Consolidation Canister I
| |
| Outer Square Dimension, I
| |
| 20.34 + 0.0508 cm (8.00 + 0.02")
| |
| 16~6086 Fuel Rod Pitch SQi'i 8586" 0 Q~'
| |
| QQ SIS 6
| |
| Q)!)
| |
| Plate Thickness, 0.236 + 0.0102 cm 0.093 & 0.004")
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 418
| |
| | |
| 'N Figure 4.4-1 KENO V.a Results for B&% Criticals for Spacing Variations 44 Group BlcW Critical Experiments Spacing/Interspersed A bsorber Bias Evaluation O.lll 4A02 W.OOZ
| |
| ~vvaref ba 0.1 C0 4J ~
| |
| ba 02 0 -"9" baOA 4A 4.005 ba U/1.0 h
| |
| ~ ..ee o
| |
| Q I
| |
| b4o Average 4.000 4.010 4.012 O.i 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 Spacing, cm 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 419
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.4-2 Results for Water Spacing Experiments from KENO V.a 27 and 44 Group and MCNP Continuous Group Cross Sections Water Gap Comparisons Between Different Codes Ec Cross Sections 0.000 4.002
| |
| ~ 4.000 o1
| |
| %4 nl l~
| |
| Cl 14~ ~27
| |
| ~
| |
| c0
| |
| ~ 4.006
| |
| ~ Bnmk MCNP Cont I 60 FCI Bnmk
| |
| ~ <<20 ~ ~
| |
| 40BWBnmk 4.000
| |
| .010 4.012 12 Fuel Cluster Spacing, cm 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 420
| |
| | |
| ~ % - ~ ~ ~ 4 ~, n Figure 4.4-3 Least Squares Fit Through Results BOW Interspersed Absorber Experiments KENO V.a Bias As A Function of Spacing Between Assemblies, Water Filled 0.001 0.000
| |
| '/, y A.001
| |
| / r 4.002 01 4.003 4.004 Average BW Crrt
| |
| ~
| |
| g W
| |
| A co z.oos I I
| |
| ~
| |
| /'DBK ~
| |
| ~
| |
| -----.Avg+ Dev
| |
| ----- Avg - Dev I
| |
| //
| |
| 4.000
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| //
| |
| /
| |
| <.007 r
| |
| e.000 1
| |
| .009 10 12 Spacing Between Fuel Arrays, cm 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 421
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.4-4 Typical Ginna Axial Burnup Shapes for Burnups between 10 and 20 G%d/mtU Burnup Range 10 to 20 G%D/MTU C
| |
| 4a ~
| |
| ~A62Cy2l 09Cy23
| |
| ~C56Cy&
| |
| ~ (L6
| |
| ~q16Cy 14
| |
| ~ IV ~E60 Cy25
| |
| ~D77Cy24 20 120 140 Node Height, in 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 422
| |
| | |
| 'P ' 4 I ~
| |
| Figure 4.4-5 Typical Ginna Axial Burnup Shapes for Burnups between 20 and 30 GWd/mtU Burnup Range, 20 to 30 GWD/lCIU 1.0 08
| |
| ~ QI6 Cyl5
| |
| ~A62Cy22 gp lL6
| |
| ~D77Cy25
| |
| ~ %4 ~C56Cy24
| |
| ~CQCy24 CP OA 02 0.0 20 40 120 Node Height, in 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 423
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.4-6 Typical Ginna Axial Burnup Shapes for Burnups bebveen 30 and 40 GWd/mtU Burnup Range, 30 to 40 GWD/MTU 1.0 0.8 C,
| |
| ~A62Cy 23 Le ~Q16Cy 16
| |
| ~C63 Cy 2$
| |
| 0,6 ~CS6Cy 26 E60 Cy 26 26 Cv 0)
| |
| ~CS6 2S 0A 0.0 20 40 60 $0 100 120 140 Node Height, in 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 424
| |
| | |
| I ~ t
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.4-7 Typical Ginna Axial Burnup Shapes for Burnups between 40 and 50 GWd/mtU 1.0 Lc
| |
| ~gl6('P l7
| |
| ~A62Cy24
| |
| ~ 06 ~053 Cy26 W
| |
| ~
| |
| ~D77Cy26 CC Y)
| |
| ILO 0 20 60 80 100 Node Height, in 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 425
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.4-S Non-Axial Blanket Shapes Used for Analysis Non-Bhnket Fuel Assmbly Burnup Shapes
| |
| ~QI6Cy 14
| |
| ~Q16Cy 15
| |
| ~Q16Cy 16
| |
| ~Q16Cy 17 C 20000 10000 20 120 140 Assy Height, in 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 426
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.4-9 Relative Non-Blanket Axial Shapes Used in Analysis Mative Shapes For Non-AxialBhnhet Fuel 1.0
| |
| ~QI6+ 14 Q16+ 15
| |
| ~
| |
| ~Q16@ 16 Q16Ot'7 ao 140 Node Hei,+ In 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 427
| |
| | |
| Figure 4.4-10 Illustration of Seven Zone Representation Seven Zone Model For 40 to 50 GWD/MTU Range 1.2 0.8 0
| |
| ~
| |
| ~
| |
| A 0.6
| |
| ~ 23 Node Shape Scvea Zoae Model 4l OA 0.2 20 40 60 00 100 120 140 160 Axial Height 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 428
| |
| | |
| 5.0 THECAL-HYDRAULICEVALUATION
| |
| | |
| ==5.1 INTRODUCTION==
| |
| | |
| Rochester Gas & Electric Co. is expanding the spent fuel storage capacity at its Ginna plant through installation of high density storage racks in the spent fuel storage pool. The pool capacity will be increased in two phases. The initial phase will increase the pool storage capacity by 305 locations with the installation ofATEAType 2 and 3 racks. The second phase, ifimplemented by RG&E, will increase the capacity by an additional 48 storage locations with the installation of ATEA Type 4 racks. As discussed in Section 1.1, the pool total storage capacity of the spent fuel pool will be increased &om its present capacity of 1016 to a total of 1369 locations with the implementation of phases 1 and 2. 'oth The increased storage capacity of the spent fuel pool willresult in increased decay heat loads. The efFect of the increased decay heat on the thermal performance of the spent fuel pool was determined for the final spent fuel pool configuration (both phase 1 and 2) at the maximum capacity. The required reactor hold-time based on conservative assumptions for the full core discharge schedule was determined using the existing heat removal capability of the spent fuel heat exchangers. Pool heatup rates at the maximum pool capacity were calculated accounting for the displaced water volume. Local fluid conditions and maximum clad temperature at the most limiting location in the pool were verified as acceptable.
| |
| RG&E may elect to utilize fuel consolidation as a future means of increasing the spent fuel pool storage capacity over the present design. Local fluid conditions for the limiting location in the spent fuel storage pool, conservatively determined for normal storage, were demonstrated as bounding compared to those for consolidated fuel canisters positioned throughout the spent fuel pool.
| |
| The following analyses for the thermal-hydraulic qualification of the spent fuel storage pool were performed for the ATEA Type 2, 3 and 4 racks:
| |
| Calculation of Spent Fuel Decay Heat Loads
| |
| ~ Bulk Pool Heat Up Rate (upon loss of pool cooling)
| |
| ~ Local Pool Thermal Evaluations Calculation of local fluid and fuel clad temperatures Assessment of flow blockage on local fluid conditions Assessment of gamma heating on the fluid conditions in the inter-canister gaps
| |
| ~
| |
| Impact of Pool Re-racking on Fuel Consolidation Limits The results of these evaluations demonstrating the acceptable thermal-hydraulic performance of the Ginna spent fuel pool with increased storage capacity follow.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 429
| |
| | |
| 0 5.2 CRITERIA The thermal-hydraulic analyses were performed in accordance with the requirements and guidelines set forth in the following:
| |
| OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications, Dated April 14, 1978 and revised January 18, 1979, (Ref. 5.2.1),
| |
| NUREG-0800 Standard Review Plan 9.1.3, Revision 1 (July 1981) and Standard Review Plan 9.2.5, Revision 2 (July 1981), (Ref. 5.2.2),
| |
| ~ A.G. Croft, RI - ev'd e V e a e e i n n e le i de,ORNL-5621,(Ref.5.2.3).
| |
| The thermal-hydraulic criteria include the following:
| |
| ~ Bulk pool does not exceed 150 'F under any SFP loading criteria Local boiling does not occur in the hot assembly except for the condition of a complete inlet flow blockage Maximum clad temperature remains below saturation for all non-flow blockage cases Adequate cooling for consolidated fuel canisters is provided with the increased pool storage capacity 5.3 ASSUMPTIONS The maximum bulk fluid and clad temperatures for the Ginna spent fuel storage pool were calculated with the following conservative assumptions:
| |
| Maximized decay heat load as a result of bounding fuel enrichment, bounding burn-up and bounding number of assemblies discharged to the SFP, Instantaneous discharge of the fuel to the spent fuel pool afler a minimum reactor shutdown time of 100 hours
| |
| ~ Local hot channel peaking factor, F"~ = 1.75, used for peaking for the hot fuel assembly
| |
| ~
| |
| Minimum water volume accounting for full pool storage capacity used for the calculation of the bulk pool heat-up rate 5.4 DISCUSSION OF SPENT FUEL COOLING The existing spent fuel cooling system at the Ginna plant consists of three cooling loops. The primary loop (loop 2) is made up of spent fuel pump B, spent fuel pool heat exchanger B and piping.
| |
| The backup loops include installed loop 1 with spent fuel pool pump A, spent fuel pool heat exchanger A and piping, and skid-mounted loop 3 with skid-mounted spent fuel pool pump, spent fuel pool standby heat exchanger, piping and hoses.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 430
| |
| | |
| Loop 2 is designed to maintain the spent fuel pool water below 150'F with a design basis heat load of 16x10'tu/hr associated with a service water temperature of 80 'F. Loop 1 and loop 3 are each designed to remove 7.93x10'tu/hr with a pool temperature of 150 'F and service water at 80 'F.
| |
| Operated in parallel, they are capable of removing the design basis heat load. The source of service water for the SFP heat exchangers is Lake Ontario. No modifications to the existing SFP cooling system are planned as a result of the installation of the ATEA racks.
| |
| The availability of three pumps, three heat exchangers and associated parallel flow paths in the Ginna SFP System provides adequate protection against any postulated single failures. Therefore, redundancy exists in the Ginna spent fuel pool cooling system to-ensure that full heat removal capability is available for the design basis heat load.
| |
| Service water to the spent fuel pool cooling system is provided by lake water supplied by Lake Ontario. Since the lake water temperature varies Rom winter to summer, the potential heat removal capability of the SFP cooling system also varies. With cooler lake water temperature, the heat removal capability of the SFP cooling system increases. Therefore, the necessary core shutdown required to ensure that the SFP temperature does not exceed its 150 'F limit is a function of lake water temperature. The required core shutdown times to prevent the SFP from exceeding the 150
| |
| 'F limitwere analyzed for lake water temperatures of 40 'F and 60 'F as well as for the design lake water temperature of 80 'F.
| |
| 5.5 SPENT FUEL POOL CAPACITYAND DISCHARGE SCENARIOS The following sections summarize the spent fuel pool capacity used as a calculational base and the discharge scenarios for the normal and full core offload.
| |
| 5.5.1 Spent Fuel Pool Capacity The discharge schedule is shown in Table 5.5-1. Beginning in 1997, a bounding 44 assembly batch discharge schedule based on an 18 month fuel cycle was assumed through the end of plant life.
| |
| The discharge schedule listed in Table 5.5-1 results in a total spent pool inventory of 1879 in the year 2029. This postulated loading scheme is conservative for determining the maximum Ginna spent fuel pool heat load since the present Ginna operating license expires in the year 2009. Additionally, the 1879 fuel assemblies assumed to be loaded exceeds the 1369 fuel assembly storage locations available in the pool after installation of the ATEA Types 2, 3 and 4 racks. These extra fuel assemblies could be accommodated by performing fuel consolidation. Presently, the Ginna fuel pool includes 11 fuel assemblies that have been consolidated and are stored in 8 fuel assembly 2 fuel assembly locations are presently being used'to store non-fuel related hardware.
| |
| locations.'dditionally, 5.5.2 Core Offload Scenarios Two core offload scenarios based on the core discharge schedule in Table 5.5-1 were used in the evaluation of the spent fuel pool.
| |
| 5.5.2.1 Normal Discharge Scenario The normal fuel storage scenario assumes that one reload batch is sequentially discharged from the core until space remains for one core offload. The newly discharged batch is assumed to have a decay time of 100 hours and the previously discharged batch has a decay time of 18 months consistent with Table 5.5-1.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 431
| |
| | |
| 5.5.2.2 Full Core Discharge Scenario For a full core offload, one reload batch at a time is discharged from the reactor until vacant locations remain in the spent fuel storage pool for one batch plus one full core of fuel.
| |
| Both beginning of cycle (BOC) and end of cycle (EOC) scenarios were investigated for the full core offload. For the BOC scenario, the plant is assumed to operate for 30 days prior to shutdown. The decay heat for the previously discharged batch is assumed to be the decay time for the 30 day operation plus the decay time for the full core prior to discharge to the SFP. No credit is taken for the decay time associated with the refueling outage duration for the previously discharged batch. For the EOC scenario, the decay heat for the previously discharged 44 fuel assembly batch is based on an 18 month irradiation time.
| |
| For the discharged fuel assemblies, shown in Table 5.5-1, no additional decay time due outage duration was conservatively assumed to maximize the decay heat.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 432
| |
| | |
| Table 5.5-1 Ginna Spent Fuel Pool Inventory (Actual & Projected)
| |
| N.,:'l,:',:Dischar'g'e.:;;::.:;':i:: Avera'g'e'Burri'uji :;:,:,",:Number, of',,'.
| |
| ::;:5,:".:;:;:::;.;::;::lDa'te': .'",".":::::::: .",'.'WD/MT i':::,::::A'ssembf les':.".I'::-.:i!::Dec'a ".;',to'.9/18/2029;::.:.:'':,:
| |
| 10/1/72 19572 70 20806 1/1/74 25135 12 20349 3/11/75 24054 24 19915 1/29/76 25048 37 19591 4/15/77 28831 41 19149 3/25/78 28579 41 18805 2/9/79 29429 40 18484 3/29/80 30721 36 18070 4/18/81 31258 15 17685 1/26/82 32281 19 17402 3/27/83 35200 21 16977 3/3/84 36714 28 16635 3/2/85 37342 16271 2/7/86 39119 31 15929 2/6/87 39421 32 15565 2/10/88 40281 33 15196 3/17/89 38118 36 14795 3/23/90 36995 37 14424 3/22/91 39473 29 '4060 3/27/92 40057 37 13689 3/12/93 44705 37 13339 3/4/94 42397 27 12982 3/26/95 41518 37 12595 4/1/96 40674 41 12223 10/20/97 Pro:55000 44 11656 3/7/99 Pro':55000 44 11153 9/15/00 Pro':55000 44 10595 3/17/02 Pro':55000 44 10047 9/16/03 Pro':55000 44 9499 3/15/05 Pro':55000 44 8953 9/21/06 Pro':55000 44 8398 3/19/08 Pro':55000 44 7853 9/18/09 Pro':55000 44 7305 3/15/11 Pro':55000 44 6762 9/15/12 Pro':55000 44 6212 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 433
| |
| | |
| Table 5.5-1 Ginna Spent Fuel Pool Inventory (Actual and Projected) Continued
| |
| ',,':;;,. DIsch'arge':,:I'vera'ge'Biiriiii'p i:".'':.'."'Date:::::...':'".::::.:.::,::: D/M: ''~A'ssei'iibiics"::;::"::::4'5cca":to'9/f 8/2029:i:::..-"
| |
| Pro':55000 44 5666 '/15/14 9/15/15 Pro':55000 44 5117 3/15/17 Pro':55000 44 4570 9/15/18 Pro':55000 44 4021 3/15/20 Pro':55000 44 3474 9/15/21 Pro':55000 44 2925 3/15/23 Pro':55000 44 2379 9/15/24 Pro:55000 44 1829 3/15/26 Pro:55000 44 1283 9/15/27 Pro':55000 44 734 3/15/29 Pro':55000 44 187 9/18/29 TBD 121 Total 1879 Note: Number of assemblies discharged through April 1996 are actual assemblies discharged to the SFP.
| |
| 5.6 DECAY HEAT LOAD The decay heat loads were determined with the ORIGEN2 computer code (Ref. 5.2.3). ORIGEN2 has been submitted previously for a similar application (Ref. 5.6.1). The code explicitly solves the coupled isotopic production and decay equations, properly accounts for the heat produced by all activation products and more than 100 actinide isotopes, and rigorously accounts for neutron absorption in the fission products. Whereas activation products produce a small fmction ofthe decay heat power, their contribution is included in this analysis for conservatism. A comparison between ORIGEN2 and ASB 9.2 methodology is included in Section 5.11.
| |
| 5.6.1 Full Core Decay Heat Load For this evaluation, the core was assumed to operate at 102% of the rated 1520 MWt core power for 18 month cycles. A conservative flat full power history was used for the entire cycle length.
| |
| Consequently, the reactor was assumed to operate at 102% power for the entire cycle length with no reductions in power which normally occur during a typical cycle. No credit was taken for nuclide decay (and corresponding reduction in decay heat) during outage periods and during fuel transfer (i.e., the assembly, batch, or core offload was assumed to occur instantaneously). The maximum heat load resulting from a core offload was calculated at 100 hours after reactor shutdown.
| |
| To ensure that conservative decay heats were obtained, the decay heat for burnups of 15, 17.5, and 20 GWD/MTUwere calculated. The 20 GWD/MTUburnup bounds the cycle length associated with an 18 month fuel cycle. In addition, a short irradiation period of 30 days, which corresponds to a cycle burnup of 1.1 GWD/MTU, was performed to investigate pool heat loads for a BOC core offload scenario. The resulting decay heat loads after 100 hours of decay were examined and the maximum value, which occurred after a burnup of 20 GWD/MTU, was used in this analysis.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 434
| |
| | |
| 5.6.2 Single Fuel Assembly Decay Heat Load The heat load for a single fuel assembly was also computed. Both average and peak assembly heat loads are required for analysis. The heat load was based on an eighteen month cycle length and 44 fuel assembly batch size was assumed for each reload outage.
| |
| The power history of an individual fuel assembly has a significant effect on the decay heat prediction. Typically,-fresh and once-burned fuel will operate above the average assembly power.
| |
| This evaluation incorporated an assembly peaking of 1.35 for fresh fuel, 1.20 for once-burned and 1.00 for twice burned fuel. Calculations utilizing the decay heat load for an average fuel assembly were based on a 'peak'verage fuel assembly operating at an assembly relative power of 1.35. This corresponds to a fresh fuel assembly in the reactor. The decay heat load for this 'peak'ssembly after a shutdown time of 100 hours is greater than that for an assembly operating at the true core average power, i.e., having a 1.00 peaking factor.
| |
| The hot, or design, fuel assembly decay heat load was obtained by conservatively applying the design enthalpy rise factor for the Ginna core, F"~>> = 1.75, to the average assembly decay heat load.
| |
| 5.7 REQUIRED CORE DECAY TIMES The technical specification temperature limit for the Ginna spent fuel storage pool is 150'F. This temperature limit is achieved with the heat removal capability of the present SFP heat exchangers.
| |
| The SFP heat load must not exceed the heat removal capability of the existing SFP heat exchangers at a 150'F pool temperature. In order to maintain the SFP bulk temperature below the technical specification limit, the fuel must be held in the core for a minimum shutdown time to ensure that the total SFP heat load is less than the heat removal capability of the existing Ginna SFP cooling system.
| |
| Fuel may not be offloaded from the core, in any event, prior to a minimum shutdown time of 100 hours that is assumed for the radiological consequence analysis.
| |
| The required shutdown time to maintain the bulk pool temperature less than the 150'F technical specification limit was determined for lake temperatures of 80'F, 60'F and 40'F.
| |
| 5.7.1 Single Batch Offload The decay heat load for a 44 fuel assembly batch was determined for batch average burnups of 15, 30, 45 and 60 GWD/MTU. The maximum spent fuel pool decay heat load, after a 100 hour shutdown time, is 11.22x10'tu/hr. This heat load includes the contribution due to all previously discharged batches, and occurred for the 15 GWD/MTU case. The contribution due to all previous discharged batches is 3.56x10'tu/hr. Note that, in general, the long term decay heat load typically increases with increasing burnup. However, the 44 assembly batch modeled here utilized conservative peaking factors of 1.35 for a burnup of 0 to 20 GWD/MTU, 1.2 for a burnup of 20 to 36 GWD/MTU, and 1.0 for a burnup of 36 to 60 GWD/MTU. This modeling of a batch yielded a slightly higher decay heat load with 100 hours of decay after the 15 GWD/MTU burnup than did subsequent burnups with their reduced peaking factors. Thus, a conservative decay heat load was generated for the 44 assembly batch.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 435
| |
| | |
| The single batch core offload can be performed after the required 100 hour shutdown time associated with the radiological requirement. The total spent fuel pool decay heat load at 100 hours is well within the 16x10'tu/hr heat removal capability of the SFP heat exchangers at the 80'F maximum lake water temperature. Consequently, a normal 1/3 core offload after 100 hours decay willnever result in the SFP approaching its design temperature limit of 150'F.
| |
| 5.7.2 Full Core Offload A full core offload scenario with a full inventory of spent fuel assemblies (1879 fuel assemblies assuming some consolidated rod canisters) results in the highest predicted decay heat loads. A comparison of decay heat loads for the full core offload at 30 days of operation and for core average burnups of 15, 17.5 and 20 GWD/MTU showed a conservative value was calculated for the 30 day core operation. This is because the once and twice burned fuel assemblies were not decayed for any cycle outage time before the full core offload outage.
| |
| For the 30 day core operation, the total decay heat load on the SFP after 100 hours is 21.7 MBtu/hr.
| |
| Since this decay heat load exceeds the 16 MBtu/hr design limitheat removal capacity for 80'F lake water temperature, additional shutdown is required before initiating the full core offload at the design lake temperature scenario. The required delay time prior to completing the full core offload is obtained from a comparison of decay heat load against the SFP heat exchanger heat removal capability for the various lake water temperatures to ensure that the 150 'F SFP limitis not exceeded.
| |
| The required core delay times ensuring that the SFP design limit temperature of 150 'F is not exceeded for the full core offload scenario with a full inventory of spent fuel assemblies is summarized below for lake temperatures of 40 'F, 60 'F and 80 'F:
| |
| j"::.'.";:-;;.';:;.'::l.-',;:150,::>FjTech';':Sp'e'c';i'::;,':,:;:::,:.':X'll 40 24.6 21.7 100 hours 60 20.4 20.4 132 hours 80 16.0 16.0 280 hours 5.8 LOCAL FUEL BUNDLE THERMAL-HYDRAULICS The spent fuel pool at RG&E's Ginna plant, shown in Figure 5.8-1, is divided into two regions.
| |
| Region I consists of flux type racks and Region II consists of high-density type racks. Two different rack designs are contained in Region II. Part of Region II contains ATEA Type 2 borated stainless steel racks; the remaining racks in Region II are the existing boraflex design (not removed as part of the pool re-rack). The existing high-density boraflex racks have ATEA Type 4 borated stainless steel side racks located between them and the pool wall in the gap. The ATEA side racks are located on the North and South walls of the SFP.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 436
| |
| | |
| Figure 5.8-1 Spent Fuel Pool Remaining Rocks Are Region l:
| |
| 1 Region 2 '
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ~,, ~
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| I
| |
| ~
| |
| :+o ~ . +r ~ ir J
| |
| + + nn r QtVAIOR
| |
| + + A/If>
| |
| +
| |
| + +
| |
| +
| |
| + +
| |
| + + +
| |
| + +
| |
| + +
| |
| EXISPNG RACKS
| |
| +
| |
| + +
| |
| Thermal Hydraulic Models
| |
| + +
| |
| CASK AREA
| |
| ~4 ~ ~ ie
| |
| ~ ~ ~
| |
| ~ ic
| |
| ~
| |
| r' ~ ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 3 The following table identifies the rack designs found in the Ginna SFP.
| |
| 3A,B,C,D,E ATEA BSS Flux Trap 2A,B ATEA BSS High Density Boraflex Existing High Density 4A through 4F ATEA BSS (Type 4 are side High Density racks)
| |
| BSS - Borated Stainless Steel 3A, etc. - Letter denotes a particular array of canisters on a specific rack type.
| |
| S.S.1 Natural Circulation in the Spent Fuel Pool Storage Canisters When fuel assemblies offloaded from the core are placed in the spent fuel pool into the canisters, cooling occurs by natural circulation. The density difference between the hot fuel assemblies and the cooler bulk pool fluid result in a thermal head. Pressure drop due to frictional losses in the downcomer, resistances due to rack leveling feet, inlet to the fuel canisters, bundle skin &iction, fuel assembly (upper and lower) nozzles and grids and other losses in the flow path balance this buoyancy force.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 437
| |
| | |
| The natural circulation cooling is analyzed to demonstrate that adequate cooling occurs in the hottest fuel assembly in the absence of inlet and outlet flow blockages preventing local boiling and maintaining the peak clad temperature below saturation. The hydraulic model consists of a row of fuel assemblies extending from the downcomer wall to the center of the pool. The pool water is assumed to flow downward between the periphery of the wall adjacent to the rack modules, then laterally in the region between the rack module bases and the pool floor, then upward through the fuel assemblies (Figure 5.8-2). A conservative pool-rack gap geometry is used to model the downcomer. This is conservative because flow is assumed to communicate with the canisters from the downcomer only which is modelled as a flow path only one row wide. In reality, flow reaches the canisters from other downcomer regions besides the downcomer segment modelled.
| |
| For the limiting Region I location, the assembly power is for a peak average assembly having a peaking factor of 1.35 (fresh fuel) and is from the most recently discharged batch having 100 hours of decay for the radiological requirement. The fuel assembly axial variation of power was modelled with a 1.55 chopped cosine shape; the results agreed very closely with those obtained using a uniform power shape.
| |
| The single row of fuel assemblies are modelled initially to establish the pressure drop boundary condition which is then imposed on the hot fuel assembly. All canisters in the row are conservatively assumed to contain a fuel assembly with the minimum decay time. A rack leveling foot is conservatively placed below each of the fuel assemblies as an added resistance to flow. In reality, a representative row selected for evaluation consists of approximately 12 or more fuel assemblies and has at most 4 or 5 support feet.
| |
| Once the pressure drop across the row of average fuel assemblies is calculated, the calculation is repeated. The pressure drop boundary condition obtained from the row of average fuel assemblies is imposed on the hottest fuel assembly for the region being analyzed. The hottest fuel assembly has a peaking factor of F"~, = 1.75. A rack leveling foot is placed under the highest powered assembly.
| |
| The placement of the rack leveling foot under the hot assembly increases the pressure drop across the assembly and minimizes the flow to the hottest assembly.
| |
| The inlet temperature of the water entering the downcomer and flowing in the region between the rack base and pool floor is assumed to be at the maximum pool bulk temperature of 150'F.
| |
| Minimum rack-to-wall dimensions in the downcomer were modelled in order to maximize downcomer resistance thereby minimizing fuel assembly flow.
| |
| The fuel clad temperature for the hottest fuel assembly was calculated with a heat transfer coeQicient for free convection. An additional resistance of 0.001 ft~-hr-'F/Btu was used for potential fouling on the fuel rods.
| |
| Due to the various canister designs present in the Ginna spent fuel pool, a single canister-type model was not used. The final pool configuration, upon completion of Phase II, required the application of three separate models to analyze the following geometries:
| |
| Region I type 3 racks, Region II type 2 racks, and Region II with the existing boraflex and adjacent type 4 side racks.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 438
| |
| | |
| 0 Each of the models followed the general approach described above. The calculations were performed with Framatome Cogema Fuel's FSPLIT code (Ref. 5.7.1). FSPLIT is a PC based code which can be used for pressure drop/flow solutions for networks with water, heavy water, incompressible fluids, or gasses. The networks can be closed loop or simulated open loop. Forced flow and natural circulation problems can be analyzed with FSPLIT. The FSPLIT code has been previously used supporting licensing submittals.
| |
| Figure 5.8-2 Natural Circulation Flow Path Downcomer Fuel Canisters Region Flow Path "
| |
| Support Foot 5.8.2 Effects of Gamma Heating in the Flux Trap Regions and Inter-Canister Gaps The natural circulation in the flux trap regions (type 3 racks) and intercell gaps (type 2 racks) is driven by the pressure drop across the major flow path. Water enters the bottom of the canisters and flows upwards in two parallel paths. The major flow path is through the fuel assemblies and a secondary path is in the gaps between canister types where it is heated by the gamma heat produced in the stainless steel. This analysis verifies the absence of localized boiling in these secondary paths.
| |
| 5.8.2.1 Region I Type 3 Flux Traps Water enters the Region I flux traps through a rectangular opening at the top of the base plate. It flows upwards in the region between the canisters and exits at the level of the top of the canisters as shown in Figure 5.8-3. The top of every other type 3 canister has a lead in edge which forms a funnel that facilitates the insertion of offloaded fuel and which effectively blocks a significant part of the exit flow area along the canister width. This configuration is shown in Figure 1.3-4. Flow exits the flux trap region at the corner intersections of four canisters which are not obstructed by the funnel feature and rejoins the main flow.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 439
| |
| | |
| Figure 5.8-3 Flux Trap Region Fuel Canister Fuel Canister I
| |
| Main Flow Path Flux Trap Region 1
| |
| Flux Trap Entrance
| |
| )~
| |
| Diagram showing the flow path in the Type 3 Rack Flux Trap Region.
| |
| 5.8.2.2 Region II Type 2 Inter-Canister Gaps For the type 2 canister inter-canister gap, water enters an opening between the borated stainless steel plate and the canister wall above the base plate and flows upward approximately 12 feet and re-enters the main flow stream through a similar gap at the top (Figure 5.8-4). The boundary conditions for the flow in the inter-canister gap are the pressures where the flow enters the gap above the base plate and at the top where the flow exits the gap and re-enters the main flow stream.
| |
| For both gap configurations, all of the gamma heat production is deposited in the gap. The total wall thickness, including the borated stainless steel, is used to calculate the heat production.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 440
| |
| | |
| Figure 5.8-4 Region II Type 2 Inter-Canister Gap Gap Exit p ~5 3A !3 0 Qt 8
| |
| D N 0 Main Flow Qt d Path p
| |
| < Inter-Canister II8 KN Gap I8 Q li Ip Type 2 N
| |
| 8 pt 8 Gap Q Entranc e I
| |
| KN Q Diagram showing flow path in Rack Type 2 Inter-Canister Gap.
| |
| 5.S.3 Flow Blockages A partial flow blockage at the cell outlet was postulated with a fuel assembly lying on top of the rack. This configuration was modelled as a blockage ofapproximately 85% ofthe exit flow area ofthe hottest assembly located over a rack leveling foot to demonstrate that boiling would not occur.
| |
| A complete inlet blockage of the hottest assembly was also postulated. Using a counterflow flooding
| |
| ,. correlation, it was demonstrated that water would replace the exiting flow which was assumed to be steam.
| |
| 5.S.4 Natural Circulation in the Consolidated Fuel Canisters The natural circulation in the, consolidated fuel canisters is calculated in a manner similar to that for the fuel cells. The boundary condition for the flow through the consolidated canisters is obtained from the natural circulation of the average fuel assemblies. Flow resistances are based on fuel rods in a close packed 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 441
| |
| | |
| triangular lattice at a consolidation rate of 2:1. This assumes that the fuel rods associated with two fuel assemblies are stored in one consolidated canister; The flow loss through the consolidated canister is primarily due to laminar &iction losses along the rods which was determined to be approximately 50 times greater than canister inlet and exit flow losses.
| |
| RG&E may, at a future date, increase the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool through fuel consolidation.
| |
| An evaluation was performed to ascertain the affects of additional fuel consolidation activities on the thermal-hydraulic results for the hottest fuel assembly. The analysis, in principal, is the same as that used for the fuel assemblies. Comparing to the Region I results, which were thermally limiting for the spent fuel pool, consolidated fuel canisters were placed in the fuel assembly row previously modelled to establish the pressure drop boundary condition for the hottest fuel assembly. An acceptable application of consolidated fuel canisters is possible provided the calculated pressure drop boundary condition from the row of fuel assemblies used for the hottest fuel assembly remains limiting.
| |
| Various configurations of consolidated fuel canisters were investigated:
| |
| Full row of consolidated canisters in Region I, Single consolidated canister in a row of fuel assemblies, Full consolidation (2:1) and partial consolidation (1:1).
| |
| 5.9 SPENT FUEL POOL THECAL-HYDRAULICSANALYSISRESULTS The results of the spent fuel thermal-hydraulic analyses performed are discussed in this section. The general methodology used is discussed in Section 5.8. Certain features of the analysis method are repeated and expanded in the discussions of the various analyses for clarity.
| |
| 5.9.1 Region I with Type 3 ATEA Racks The ATEA type 3 rack, flux trap design, is located in Region I of the Ginna spent fuel pool (Figure 5.8-1).
| |
| This rack type was conservatively modelled as a single row of 12 canisters extending from the North wall southward to the middle of the spent fuel pool (Figure 5.8-1). The thermal-hydraulic model includes racks 3A and 3C; the single row (type 3 canisters) ends at the inter-rack gap between the type 3 and ATEA type 2 rack.
| |
| The minimum downcomer gap dimension, rack-to-pool wall, is 1.80 inches. Figure 5.9-1 shows the flow path. A single canister width is used for the width of the downcomer channel. Frictional flow losses in the downcomer were based on turbulent flow. Turn losses, contraction/expansion losses at the rack base to wall and through the support feet and base plate were based on well known expressions found in reference 5.8.1.
| |
| The fuel assembly grid and nozzle pressure drop losses were based on the behavior of an orifice in the laminar flow regime. Frictional loss due to the fuel rod and canister skin friction was calculated assuming laminar flow through the canister. The total pressure drop loss of the fuel assembly was obtained by combining the grid and nozzle losses with the friction loss.
| |
| The results for the hottest assembly in a Region I type 3 rack are summarized in the following table.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 442
| |
| | |
| Table 5.9-1 Region I Type 3 Rack Local Pool Cooling Results 9',:!':.':'Ass'eiiibly,'.;.','-.:.:..: ',::';:.,'::::.':',;.';;.',.'''',";:":::r"..',.':: Te'mperat'ur'e',(:F)'.;':;:;:::::,:''::,.':::.'!:,:.:.'..:'',:.',',".",;.,".
| |
| ::;;::':;::.;:.':::;::j;.';:;(Ibiii/hr)'."';:;.:.,":-;,":,."
| |
| ."::.:::::,':.".:,,Outlet'.,':; ;::;::;:;":P:eak.;:-:.";;::
| |
| :;,';;:::.::;i'::Fluid":.i'''::;i ';:"i'Clad;:;" .";:
| |
| Region I 1.75 4260 150 222 232 Type 3 Saturation temperature at the top of the rack is 238.9'F based on a minimum SFP water height of 23 the top of the racks.
| |
| feet'bove Figure 5.9-1 Natural Circulation Flow Path - Type 3 Rack Fuel Fuel Canister 1 Canister 2 Downcomer Fuel Canisters Region Flow Path Rack Base Support To other Foot Fuel Canisters in row (Resistance Due to Support Foot Placed Under all Canisters in Model) 5.9.2 Region II with Type 2 ATRA Racks The ATEA type 2 rack, high density design, is located in Region II of the Ginna spent fuel pool (Figure 5.8-1). This rack type was conservatively modelled as a single row of 17 canisters extending from the South wall northward to the middle of the spent fuel pool (Figure 5.8-1). The thermal-hydraulic model includes racks 2A and 2B; the single row (type 2 canisters) ends at the inter-rack gap between the type 2 and ATEA type 3 rack.
| |
| The row of fuel assemblies was modelled in a similar manner as discussed in Section 5.8.1. The minimum downcomer gap dimension, rack-to-pool wall, is 7.30 inches. A single canister width is used for the width of the downcomer channel.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 SFP Re-racking Licensing Report
| |
| 'inna Page 443
| |
| | |
| ' ~
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| The Ginna UFSAR states that prior to moving fuel from Region I to Region II, a cooling period of 60 days must have elapsed. The decay heat load for a 60 day decay time was used for the thermal-hydraulic model.
| |
| The results for the hottest assembly in a Region II Type 2 racks are summarized in'the following table. The peak clad temperature calculated in Section 5.9.1 for the type 3 rack in Region I bounds the results for a Type 2 rack. This is primarily due to the significantly lower decay heat resulting from the minimum 60 day decay time required for assemblies located in Region II.
| |
| Table 5.9-2 Region II Type 2 Rack Local Pool Cooling Results
| |
| :,'-:.'"'A's'sembly',",",,":.
| |
| ".'~'4)i;::,"-:!.':;(Ibiii/hi))i~.":,:;,-'.ii:.''
| |
| ':.'",.',,;,'','';-',:;Inlet'.:.,;:!::i'j;::;::l:.'".;
| |
| ll-:.:;j-".::.,0'utletj',;;.,:-:;,'egion II 1.75 3180 150 181 Type 2 Saturation temperature at the top of the rack is 238.9'F based on a miniinum SFP water height of 23 feet above the top of the racks.
| |
| The results reported in Section 5.8.1 for the Region I, type 3 rack are bounding.
| |
| 5.9.3 Region II with Type 4 ATEA Side Racks The ATEA type 4 side racks are located along the North and South walls of the Ginna spent fuel storage pool in the pool-to-rack gap for the existing boraflex racks (Figure 5.8-1). The large existing gap along these walls, ranging &om approximately 14 to 17 inches, permitted the additional storage using the type 4 racks. The actual placement of the racks into the pool occurs upon completion of Phase II.
| |
| The thermal-hydraulic model consisted of a single row of 15 canisters extending &om the North wall southward to the middle of the spent fuel pool (Figure 5.8-1). The thermal-hydraulic model includes a single canister in rack 4-4F and a row of 14 canisters in one of the existing boraflex racks.
| |
| The row of fuel assemblies was modelled in a similar manner as discussed in Section 5.8.1. This model differs slightly due to the differences between the existing rack design and the ATEA Type 4 rack design. The existing boraflex racks have an I-beam around their perimeter supporting the main structure which resembles a rectangular honeycomb. Square flow holes are located in the I-beam permitting flow to transverse &om the downcomer to central regions of the pool. The canister entrance flow hole in the base plate of the canisters is virtually identical for both designs (3.37 in.
| |
| for the ATEA type 4 and 3.25 in. minimum for the existing borafiex canister).
| |
| The pressure loss through the I-beam was modelled as a restriction for flow to the boraflex racks.
| |
| The loss coeKcient for flow through the I-beam is similar in magnitude to that for flow through an ATEA support foot. The minimum downcomer gap dimension, rack-to-pool wall, is 3.59 inches for this analysis. A single canister width is used for the width of the downcomer channel.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 444
| |
| | |
| Because of differences in inlet regions of the rack designs, the boraflex type was analyzed initially with the minimum rack-to-wall gap dimension to obtain the pressure drop boundary condition. The minimum downcomer rack-to-wall gap dimension of 3.59 inches was based on the presence of a type 4 canister. The canister pressure drop obtained for the boraflex type canister was then used as a boundary condition that existed across the ATEA Type 4 rack. The fuel assembly flow rate and temperature rise for the ATEA Type 4 rack was calculated based upon the assumed pressure drop boundary condition.-
| |
| The Ginna UFSAR states that prior to moving fuel &om Region I to Region II, a cooling period of 60 days must have elapsed. The decay heat load for a 60 day decay time was used for the thermal-hydraulic model.
| |
| Since the ATEAtype 4 and boraflex rack designs both have essentially equal flow areas (the boraflex is slightly larger than type 4), the results obtained for the ATEA Type 4 rack are equally applicable to both rack types. The ATEA Type 4 rack results are summarized in the following table.
| |
| Table 5.9-3 Region II Type 4 4 Boraflex Rack Local Pool Cooling Results
| |
| ';.;;'Asse'mbly,:,',:.':'.; :>'.""'Ass'embly",Flow.,",:.':,',":t
| |
| ',:''', -,':, ~;:."-.:."~',:::,:;Te'mp'eratu'r'e'',,'(',.F)'i: ';:;;":;:.':l~::;::i
| |
| ,'':;::.;::'';.:.,''.;l:,'i:':i'(Ibmlhr).',:::::;.::',,::::''::,;:;
| |
| '.".:~4;":::::.Inlet:::::!."'':::: '':':.Outlet '"i""::
| |
| Region II 1.75 3600 150 177 Type 4 &
| |
| Boraflex Saturation temperature at the top of the rack is 238.9'F based on a minimum SFP water height of 23 feet above the top of the racks.
| |
| As with the ATEA Type 2 racks, the results reported in Section 5.8.1 for the Region I, type 3 rack are bounding due to the longer decay time associated with the fuel assemblies stored in Region II of the Ginna spent fuel pool.
| |
| 5.9.4 Natural Circulation in the Region I Flux Trap Region The pressures obtained from the Region I type 3 average fuel assemblies were applied as the boundary condition to obtain the flow in the Region I flux traps. The circulation in the flux trap regions is driven by the pressure differences in the fuel cells because the flow in these major paths is much higher. The gamma heating occurs in the stainless steel and water and is deposited directly into the flux trap region. For the analysis configuration described in Section 5.8.2, the following results were obtained for the Region I flux traps. The reported flow is contained in one gap between two adjacent canisters in Region I.
| |
| Flow (per gap): 38 ibm/hr Outlet Temperature: 221'F 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 445
| |
| | |
| 5.9.5 Natural Circulation in the Region II Inter-Canister Gaps The pressures obtained from the Region II type 2 average fuel assemblies were applied as the boundary condition to obtain the flow in the Region II flux traps. Pressures were selected at the height of the inlet to the inter-canister gap above the base plate and approximately 12 feet downstream where the flow &om the gaps re-enters the main stream inside the canister. As with the Region I flux traps, the circulation in the inter-canister gaps is driven by the pressure differences in the fuel cells because the flow in these major flow paths is much higher. The gamma heating occurring in the stainless steel and water is deposited directly into the inter-canister gap region. For the analysis configuration described in Section 5.8.2, the following results were obtained for the Region II inter-canister gaps. The reported flow is contained in one gap between two adjacent canisters in Region II.
| |
| Flow (per gap): 12 Ibm/hr Outlet Temperature: 184'F 5.9.6 The Effect of Flow Blockage The partial blockage of a canister outlet was analyzed assuming a dropped fuel assembly was laying on top of the rack. Utilizing the conservative assumption that the end flitting of the dropped fuel assembly obstructed the exit flow from the hottest assembly in Region I, the exit flow area was reduced by approximately 85%. The resulting bulk fluid temperature was determined to be 233 'F which is below saturation (238.9'F). The peak clad temperature for the outlet blockage is 244'F.
| |
| The peak clad temperature is slightly above the saturation temperature. Using a nucleation criterion
| |
| &om Lahey (Ref. 5.9.6), it was shown that bubbles may be present on the cladding surface but that local conditions would not support bubble growth. The heat flux necessary for active nucleation is approximately seven times greater than the hot fuel assembly heat flux. Consequently, adequate cooling of the canister is still maintained.
| |
| The second scenario that was investigated was the complete blockage of the fuel canister inlet. The complete blockage of a canister inlet prevents natural circulation flow &om removing the decay heat.
| |
| In the event of such a blockage, evaporative cooling removes the decay heat from the canister.
| |
| Assuming steam flow exists in the hottest fuel assembly canister (F"~= 1.75), a counterflow flooding correlation of Wallis demonstrated that the liquid water entering the canister was sufficient to replenish the boil-offand prevent dry-out. As long as the required mass flux of liquid (needed to match the steam rate) is less than the flooding limit, adequate cooling of the assembly is assured even ifthe canister inlet is completely obstructed.
| |
| The counter-current flooding calculation was performed for minimum flow areas of one-half (0.139 fl ) and one-fourth (0.070 fP) of the minimum fuel assembly tube region flow area. The minimum tube region flow area is 0.279 ft'. It was conservatively assumed that the fluid pressure at the fuel assembly exit was atmospheric and no credit was taken for subcooling of the liquid entering the top of the assembly.
| |
| The results indicated that a safety margin of over 40 exists at the one-half area reduction and over 7 for the one-fourth area reduction. The clad temperature was calculated to be approximately 10 'F above the water saturation temperature.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 446
| |
| | |
| 5.9.7 Natural Circulation in the Consolidated Fuel Canister The evaluation of cooling the consolidated fuel canister is identical in principle to the fuel assembly analysis. The decay heat load is much lower, based on a 5 year decay time. The local pressures &om the Region I average fuel assembly analysis were applied as boundary conditions with a rack leveling foot placed below the consolidated fuel canister. The consolidated fuel canister contained two fuel assemblies worth of rods.
| |
| Decay heat for this analysis was selected by comparing the decay heat of peak average fuel assemblies after a 5 year decay having burnups of 15, 30, 45 and 60 GWd/mtU. The decay heat for a fuel assembly having 60 GWd/mtU was found to be bounding and was used for this evaluation.
| |
| The result for the consolidated fuel canister follows:
| |
| Flow: 120 ibm/hr Outlet Temperature: 222'F Peak Clad Temperature: 231'F RGB'ay, at a future date, increase the capacity of the Ginna spent fuel storage pool through consolidation. This evaluation assessed the impact of consolidated fuel canisters on the local pressure results &om the Region I analysis.
| |
| Using the Region I thermal-hydraulic model, an analysis was performed to obtain the pressure drop boundary condition as was done for the row of average fuel assemblies. Consolidated fuel canisters having consolidation rates of 2:1 and 1:1 were modelled.
| |
| The results indicated that both configurations of consolidated fuel canisters would result in higher local pressure drops than were determined for the row of fuel assemblies. Applying these local pressures across the hottest fuel assembly as a pressure drop boundary condition would result in increased flow to the hottest assembly compared to the design results obtained with the fuel assemblies.
| |
| These evaluations indicate the thermal-hydraulic conditions determined with fuel assemblies in the fuel canisters in both Regions I and II remain bounding with increasing numbers of consolidated fuel canisters. With increasing numbers of consolidated fuel canisters, additional flow would be diverted to the hottest fuel assembly resulting in reduced bulk fluid and clad temperatures for the hottest assembly.
| |
| 5.10 LOSS OF THE SPENT FVEL COOLING SYSTEM The spent fuel pool temperature heat-up rate has been determined for a complete loss of the spent fuel heat removal system. No credit is taken for heat loss through the pool walls, evaporative cooling from the pool surface or convective cooling to the ambient air. The thermal inertia of the pool was determined by summing the contributions of the racks, fuel assemblies, the net pool water volume, and the SFP liner.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 447
| |
| | |
| The heat-up rates are calculated for the time it takes the pool to heat from the 150'F technical specification limittemperature to the design limit for the SFP, 180'F. Values are reported for both the pool configuration with fuel assemblies and for complete consolidation. Complete consolidation places two fuel assemblies in a consolidated fuel canister placed in every location of the spent fuel pool. The table summarizes the heat-up rates for varying heat loads as a function of the lake water temperature.
| |
| Backup heat removal systems consisting of the original SFPCS and the portable skid mounted unit are available in the event of a failure of the primary SFPCS. The use of these backup systems provide heat up times to reach the 180'F structural integrity limit temperature greater than those listed in Table 5.10-1. The original SFPCS can be made operational in 45 minutes which is considerably less than the minimum time of 3.4 hours listed in Table 5.10-1 for full consolidation with an 80'F lake water temperature. After 45 minutes of heatup, the pool temperature would be 156.5'F for a heat up rate of 8.71'/hr for full consolidation. The increase in water temperature would then drop to 4.4'F/hr after 45 minutes. An additional 5.3 hours would be available for repair or to place the skid mounted unit into operation before the pool water temperature reaches 180'F.
| |
| The additional time of 5.3 hours is greater than the 3 hours required to bring the skid mounted system into operation. Similar results are obtained for lake water temperatures below 80'F. Thus, adequate time and cooling capacity are available to prevent the SFP water temperature &om reaching 180'F.
| |
| Table 5.10-1 Loss of Pool Cooling and Heat-Up Time
| |
| ".,:.,".,::Pool':;Coiifiguration'!'::::'::,"';,-:::-:';;:llake'.".%ater@~,.'-".:
| |
| ~),:::,':: --,'"=:;-.';;:(Hours)': ''::-'::.: .-::
| |
| ';':'".-:;:;!1:50;::F'"~;;:;1:80.':F.;-::ii.:'.;;",
| |
| Unconsolidated 40 21.7 2.8 Unconsolidated 60 20.4 3.0 Unconsolidated 80 16.0 3.8 Consolidated 40 21.7 2.5 Consolidated 60 20.4 2.7 Consolidated 80 16.0 3.4 The heat-up rate for a lake water temperature of 40'F is based on the decay heat aAer a 100 hour decay time based on the radiological requirement. The consolidated pool configuration is for full pool consolidation, i.e., two spent fuel assemblies are conservatively placed in a consolidated fuel canister in all locations.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 448
| |
| | |
| 5.11 COMPARISON BETWEEN ORIGEN2 RESULTS AND ASB 9-2 METHODOLOGY ORIGEN2 does not use empirical-based methods to calculate decay heat but tracks the buildup and decay of the individual fission products within the reactor core during operation pnd shutdown.
| |
| ORIGEN2 also includes the effect of element transmutation from neutron capture, both in fissile isotopes and fission products. Because ORIGEN2 performs a rigorous calculation of decay heat, it was used in the calculations for decay'eat in this analysis. To provide additional information, a comparison of the full core decay heat power resulting from ORIGEN2 and that resulting from the Branch Technical Position ASB 9-2 for a core operating time of 15 GWD/MTU is shown below for several times after shutdown.
| |
| Table 5.11-1 Comparison between ORIGEN2 and ASB 9-2 Results for a full core offload (121 Fuel Assemblies, no pool inventory) with 15 GWD/MTU burnup 24 8041 9104 1.132 100 5050 5537 1.096 600 2351 2544 1.082 2400 1094 1101 1.006 This comparison shows that for the time of interest in this analysis, 100 hours, that the ASB 9-2 method predicts the decay heat for a full core to be within 10% of ORIGEN2.
| |
| 5.12 REFERENCES 5.2.1 OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications, Dated April 14, 1978, and revised January 18, 1979.
| |
| 5.2.2 NUREG-0800 Standard Review Plan 9.1.3, Revision 1 (July 1981), and Standard Review Plan 9.2.5 Revision 2 (July 1981), (Ref. 5.2).
| |
| 5.2.3 A.G. Croff, 2- evi e e Ve in e ak 'de e e ORNL-5621, (Ref. 5.3).
| |
| 5.6.1 P.L. Holman, et. al., e w traeR c BAW-2095, November 1989. (FCF internal document).
| |
| 5.7.1 FTI Document 32-1203121-01, "FSPLIT Certification Analysis," September 1991. (Code Verification) 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 449
| |
| | |
| 0 5.8.1 Handbook ofHydraulic Resistance, 2nd Edition, I.E. Idelchik, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,
| |
| 1986.
| |
| 5.9.6 The Thermal-Hydraulics of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor, 2nd Printing, R.T. Lahey, Jr.,
| |
| and F.J. Moody, ANS/AEC Monograph Series on Nuclear Science and Technology Published by the ANS.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 450
| |
| | |
| 6.0 RADIOLOGICALEVALVATION The radiological safety analysis"'I was performed in accordance with General Design Criteria 61 of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix AI"Ito evaluate hypothetical accidents involving fuel damage to Regions 1 and 2 and dose rates due to the increased capacity. The analysis addressed:
| |
| (1) offsite dose consequences at the site boundary (EAB) and at the low population zone .
| |
| boundary (LPZ) from these limiting hypothetical 'accidents:
| |
| (a) rack drop accident (b) cask drop or tip accident (c) gate drop accident (d) consolidated canister drop accident (e) fuel handling accident (f) tornado missile accident (2) dose rates at the surface of the spent fuel pool and through the pool's concrete walls for the purposes of occupational exposure.
| |
| The analysis also addresses solid radwaste and gaseous releases.
| |
| From the standpoint of offsite doses, the important aspect of the proposed re-racking is that the pool will continue to be divided into two regions, Region 1 which requires fuel to have decayed a minimum time of 100 hours, and (2) Region 2 which requires fuel to have decayed for a minimum time of 60 days. These two regions are illustrated in Figure 6-1. Due to the two separate decay times, accidents occurring in either area can have varying radiological consequences.
| |
| 6.1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 6.1.1 Offsite Dose Exposure Reference offsite dose values for evaluating hypothetical accidents involving fission product releases are specified in 10 CFR Part 100"" and are 25 rem to the whole body and 300 rem to the thyroid
| |
| &om iodine exposure. Both values are applicable to the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and the low population zone boundary (LPZ). Section 15.7.4. of the Standard Review Plan"'I (SRP) specifies acceptance criteria of 25% of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines'or postulated fuel handling accidents.
| |
| However, the Ginna Station was designed and built prior to the SRP and is not required to meet the SRP limits. A previous fuel handling accident analysis showed an offsite dose of 96 rem thyroid""+'hich has been previously accepted by the NRC as being "well within" 10 CFR Part 100 limits.
| |
| 1 Section 15.7.4.IV states that a plant's facilities are acceptable ifreasonable assurance is provided that the calculated offsite radiological consequences of a postulated fuel handling accident are well within the 10 CFR Part 100 exposure guidelines.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 451
| |
| | |
| 6.1.2 Occupational Dose Exposure Occupational exposure dose limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20~ j and are further controlled by plant procedures. The recommended dose rate that shall not be exceeded in accessible spaces adjacent the spent fuel pool is given in ANSVANS 57.2~"j and is 2.5 mrem/hr to any persons occupying those spaces. The rate is specified for when the pool is at its design fuel inventory and at the minimum design water depth.
| |
| 6.2 OFFSITE DOSE CONSEQUENCES The following six hypothetical accidents potentially resulting in releases of fission products were evaluated:
| |
| a) rack drop accident b) cask drop or tip accident c) gate drop accident d) consolidated canister drop accident e) fuel handling accident f) tornado missile accident 6.2.1 Rack Drop Accident Installation and removal of the racks (heavy loads) willrequire use of the auxiliary building's 30 ton crane hook, which meets the single failure proof requirements of NUREG-0612~ j for carrying heavy loads (see UFSAR Ch. 9.1.4.3.1)"'". In addition, during the re-racking, installation and removal procedures willprevent transport of racks over spent fuel. Thus, an accident involving the release of fission products from a rack drop accident is not plausible, and the offsite radiological dose consequences need not be determined for this accident.
| |
| 6.2.2 Cask Drop/Tip Accident Insertion and removal of a spent fuel cask will be conducted using the auxiliary building's 30 ton crane hook, which meets the single failure proof requirements of NUREG-0612 for carrying heavy
| |
| 'oads (see UFSAR Ch. 9.1.4.3.1). In addition, during the removal and insertion of the cask, plant procedures and crane interlocks willprevent transport of the cask over spent fuel. Thus, an accident involving the release of fission products from a cask drop or tip accident is not plausible, and the offsite radiological dose consequences need not be determined for this accident.
| |
| 6.2.3 Gate Drop Accident The existing lifting mechanism for the spent fuel pool gate (to transfer canal) is not single failure proof. However, RG&E will modify the lifting mechanism to make it single failure proof in accordance with NUREG-0612 to prevent accidental dropping of the gate, which is considered a heavy load. This action will prevent potential fuel damage and the subsequent release of fission products. Thus, the oQsite radiological dose consequences need not be determined for this accident.
| |
| 6.2.4 Consolidated Canister Drop Accident A consolidated canister can contain all of the fuel rods from two assemblies and is considered a heavy load per NUREG-0612 criteria. There will be administrative control for movement of the canisters in the spent fuel pool. The canisters will be lifted using a single-failure proof crane and a 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 452
| |
| | |
| single-failure proof liftingsystem and willbe handled in accordance with the guidelines on NUREG-0612 with regard to limiting the chance ofan unacceptable heavy load drop. This action willprevent potential fuel damage and the subsequent release of fission products. Thus, the offsite radiological dose consequences need not be determined for this accident.
| |
| 6.2.5 Fuel Handling Accident The dose models and methodology for calculating the thyroid and whole-body doses at the EAB and LPZ due to a fuel handling accident inside the auxiliary building are described in Section 15.7.3.2 of the UFSAR. The proposed re-racking of the Ginna SFP has not affected any assumptions or (including source terms) used in the fuel handling accident as described in the UFSAR. The 'nputs height of the Region 1 racks willremain the same as those currently installed, and it has been shown (UFSAR 15.7.3.1.4) that ifa dropped fuel assembly impacts a stored assembly, the fuel rod cladding of the impacted assembly would not fail. Therefore, the current analysis for this accident as documented in the UFSAR remains valid and applicable.
| |
| The offsite dose consequences for a fuel handling accident occurring in the spent fuel pool are:
| |
| 0-2 hour thyroid 14 0.88 0-2 hour whole body 0.31 0.02 6.2.6 Tornado Missile Accident Since Region 1 racks are to be replaced with ATEA-designed racks, the radiological dose consequences of the tornado missile accident in Region 1 must be re-evaluated. The dose models used to calculate the offsite thyroid and whole body doses are identical to the models used in the fuel handling accident analysis inside the auxiliary building (see section 15.7.3.2 of the UFSAR).
| |
| The thyroid dose was calculated using the following equation:
| |
| XB Dose(rem) = PA I DCFI g
| |
| where A; = iodine activity(Ci) released from auxiliary building for isotope I X/Q = the 0-2 hour atmospheric dispersion factor at the site boundary and the 0-8 hour atmospheric dispersion factor at the low population boundary B breathing rate (3.47 x 10~ m'/sec)
| |
| DCF; adult thyroid inhalation dose conversion factor (rem/Ci) for iodine isotope I The external whole body gamma radiation dose was calculated using the following semi-infinite cloud equation:
| |
| X Dose(rem) = 0.25 gE I 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 453
| |
| | |
| where 0.25 units conversion factor [(rad-m3-disintegration)/(Ci-MeV-sec)] to convert [(Ci-sec-MeV)/m'] to rads (or rems since quality factor is 1.0)
| |
| EY; average gamma ray energy (MeV/disintegration) for isotope I A; = noble gas activity (Ci) released from the auxiliary building X/Q = the 0-2 hour atmospheric dispersion factor at the site boundary and the 0-8 hour atmospheric dispersion factor at the low population boundary Note that 0.25 x EY; is the whole body dose conversion factor.
| |
| Since the pool is divided into two regions, it is possible that the hypothetical tornado missile, which is considered to be a 1,490 lb wooden pole, 35 ft in length and 13.5 inches in diameter (see UFSAR 9.1.2.7), could impact and damage the fuel in either region. The ATEA racks are being designed to replace the existing Region 1 racks and will have the same height as the current Region 1 racks. It has been determined in a separate analysis (see Section 3 of this report) that the resulting damage from the stated tornado missile to the ATEA-designed racks would be the assembly of direct impact and immediately adjacent assemblies for a total of nine damaged assemblies.
| |
| Since Region 1 is to contain freshly off-loaded fuel with a minimum of 100 hours of decay whereas Region 2's minimum decay time is 60 days, Region 1 damage will provide limiting dose consequences. Freshly oF-loaded fuel is to be stored in a checkerboard pattern. To ensure that freshly off-loaded fuel is not stored in adjacent rack cells, the Region 1 racks will be loaded in a checkerboard pattern with fuel from Region 2 before off-loading fresh fuel.
| |
| Upon impact from the hypothetical tornado missile, the maximum damage to the Region 1 ATEA racks will be nine cells or nine assemblies. The worst case configuration would be five freshly off-loaded assemblies and four Region 2 assemblies. It was conservatively assumed that all assemblies had a peaking factor of 1.2. Additional assumptions and inputs are shown in Table 6A-1 in Appendix 6A. The resulting offsite dose consequences are shown below in Table 6.4-1. For comparison, the dose consequences resulting &om the tornado missile accident occurring in Region 2 and damaging nine fuel assemblies (see UFSAR 9.1.2.7) were also calculated and are shown in Table 6.2-1.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 454
| |
| | |
| Table 6.2-1 Offsite Radiological Consequences of a Hypothetical Tornado Missile Accident Tornado missile accident in Region 1 (100 hrs decay) 0-2 hour thyroid 40 20 0-2 hour whole body 0.19 0.093 Tornado missile accident in Region 2 (60 days decay) 0-2 hour thyroid 0.51 0.25 0-2 hour whole body 8.1E-4 4.0E-4 6.3 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE The Ginna Station Radiation Protection Staff and Procedures are currently adequate for supporting this major operation. The areas of potential concerns are documented in procedures. These include but are limited to: the risk of significant airborne activity, the protection of the divers and the workers from inadvertent and unplanned exposures, and the documentation of the dose from this campaign.
| |
| Work will be controlled by the Ginna Station RWP, and tracked using the automated electronic dosimetry program. This allows a very rapid update of the worker's doses as well as the total person-rem associated with the rerack.
| |
| Personnel traffic and equipment movement will be monitored and controlled to minimize contamination and radioactive waste generation, and to ensure that the work is in keeping with the ALARAdose minimization philosophy.
| |
| Divers will have multiple electronic and TLD dosimetry to ensure that correct monitoring of the doses is achieved. To support this, area radiation monitors will be installed into the spent fuel pool to anticipate any radiological changes.
| |
| Gaseous releases will be monitored at the pool by a Continuous Air Monitor which willbe Noble Gas and Iodine capable. The plant effluent radiation monitoring system will also be available to monitor these conditions.
| |
| Ginna Station performed a rerack in 1984-1985 and the lessons learned were reviewed and willbe applied to the upcoming project. As a result, we expect this to reduce the total exposure associated with the rerack from 14 Person-Rem in 1984-1985 to a range of 8 to 12 Person-Rem in 1998.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 455
| |
| | |
| While offsite dose consequences are calculated for accident scenarios, there should be no significant releases to the atmosphere or receiving waters as a result of the rerack. Any releases which do occur should be well within the regulatory limits.
| |
| All of the Radiation Protection Professional Staff are Board Certified by the American Board of Health Physics (Parts 1 and 2). As a result, they have a high degree of training and experience to deal with developing situations.
| |
| Due to the proposed increase in spent fuel capacity, the dose rates at the outer surface of each concrete wall of the spent fuel pool and the dose rate at the pool surface were calculated. The spent fuel pool wall thicknesses are shown in Figure 6.2. The dose rates were calculated using the discrete ordinates transport codes, ANISN"'",and DORT " '". ANISN is essentially a one-dimensional version of the two-dimensional DORT code and generally yields slightly more conservative results than the DORT code. The DORT code was used to verify the ANISN results. The macroscopic material cross sections were generated using the BUGLE-93 "" microscopic cross section library.
| |
| The source terms for both codes were generated based upon:
| |
| ~> pool at full capacity
| |
| ~> fuel with a burnup of 60 GWD/MTU
| |
| ~~ fuel with 100 hours of decay.
| |
| The resulting dose rates at locations of interest are shown in Table 6.3-1. All dose rates at the outer surfaces are small with the exception of the south wall, which has a dose rate of 101 rem/hr. This dose rate is not a concern, however, since the south wall faces the ground at elevations spanning the heights of the fuel assemblies. At elevations above the fuel, the concrete is nearly six feet thick and at this outer surface it becomes the north wall of the decontamination pit.
| |
| During normal operations, personnel working in the fuel storage area are exposed to radiation from the spent fuel pool. Operating experience has shown that the area radiation dose rates, which originate primarily from radionuclides in the pool water, are generally 1.0 to 2.0 mrem/hr.
| |
| Radionuclide concentrations typical of those found in pool water are shown in Table 6.3-2. During fuel reload operations, the concentrations might be expected to increase due to crud deposits spalling Rom spent fuel assemblies and to activities carried into the pool &om the primary system. However, experience to date has not indicated a major increase as a consequence of refueling.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 456
| |
| | |
| e U
| |
| | |
| 6.4 SOLID RADWASTK Spent resins are generated by the spent fuel pool purification system. The frequency for changing the resins is between two to three years. The floor of the spent fuel pool will be cleaned before any work and after each of the old Region 1 racks is removed. Appropriate work practices and the cleaning of the spent fuel pool floor will reduce the generation of spent resins by the purification system. It is not possible to separate out the activity of the spent fuel pool resin from the resin in the spent resin tank. Recent resin activity is shown in Table 6.4-1. Operating experience after the 1985 modification indicates that the increased storage capacity will not result in a significant change in generation of solid radwaste (disposal of the existing Region 1 .racks immediately after the .
| |
| installation is discussed separately in Section 6.6).
| |
| There is no expected additional man-rem burden from the solid radwaste generated due to the increased capacity of the spent fuel pool.
| |
| Table 6.4-1 Radionuclide Analysis Report - Resin Activity, from the Spent Resin Tanks NON-TRANSURANIC pCi/gm Co-58 4.63 Cs-137 15.04 Cs-134 1.29 Co-60 13.83 Mn-54 1.01 C-14 1.27 Tc-99 < LLD I-129 < LLD H-3 1.28 Sr-90 0.13 Ni-63 27.70 Fe-55 24.90 Sb-125 6.69 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 458
| |
| | |
| Table 6.4-1 Radionuclide Analysis Report - Resin Activity, from the Spent Resin Tanks Continued TRANSURANIC Po-238 0.014 P0-239, 240 0.008 PU-241 0.70 Cm-242 0.019 Cm-245/244 0.020 Resin Volume = 14'' or 0.4
| |
| = lowest level of detection m'LD 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 459
| |
| | |
| 6.5 GASEOUS RELEASES Table 6.5-1 summarizes the auxiliary building gaseous releases in 1994 and 1995. No significant increases are expected as a result of the reracking. There is no way to separate out the SFP contribution &om the total exhausted &om the auxiliary building.
| |
| Table 6.5-1 Gaseous Releases from the Auxiliary Building I;::.'Radio'nuclide':, '.;-'..'.,':,-P)Cur'ies.::'',>,'':",:y',.'.21 Xe-133 x 10'.63 Xe-135 I-131 1.30 x 10" Kr-85m Kr-87 Kr-88 I-133 1.62 x 10" H-3 3.73 x 10'.46 Cs-137 x 10~
| |
| ,Radio'aiiclide.'.- i'::;::;:>,.".,'.;,'Cii'r'ie's','';:,'::.":.":I.':,',
| |
| Xe-133 1.86 x 10 Xe-135 7.03 I-131 7.18 x 10 ~
| |
| Kr-85m Kr-87 Kr-88 I-133 1.22 x 10~
| |
| H-3 4.94 x 10 Cs-137 4.27 x 10 Note: It is not possible to segregate the atmospheric releases &om the spent fuel pool from the remainder of the auxiliary building.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 460
| |
| | |
| 6.6 RACK DISPOSAL During the modification, three Wachter racks will be removed &om the spent fuel pool: Type A3 (31,366 lbs), Type B (26,533 lbs), and Type C (23,453 lbs). The old Region 1 racks will be decontaminated, packaged, and shipped by truck to a facility licensed for the processing of low-level radioactive waste.
| |
| Shipment of the spent fuel pool racks to the processing facility will meet all the requirements set forth by applicable Departments of Transportation (Federal and State) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
| |
| 6R7 CONCLUSIONS Of the six limiting hypothetical accidents evaluated only two, the fuel handling and tornado missile accidents, result in the release of fission products to the environment. The offsite thyroid and whole body doses calculated for the exclusion area boundary and low population zone boundary are less than the acceptance criteria. Therefore, it can be concluded that in the event of these accidents, the proposed re-racking of the Ginna spent fuel pool does not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
| |
| The increase in storage capacity does not adversely affect the dose rates at the pool surface or at other locations of interest nor will it adversely affect solid radwaste production and gaseous releases from the auxiliary building.
| |
| | |
| ==6.8 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| 6.1 32-1258146-00, -ac R i n l i, M.A. Rutherford.
| |
| ', T.L. Lotz.
| |
| 6.2 33 32-1257240-00, fll lll,ddp riteria I,C d*
| |
| era k fl'* IR la, 4/30/93.3 I I, 9 e I dtlApp 41 A,~
| |
| 6.4 Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 100, 413 9193.
| |
| 6.5 NUEEG-0800, n ar R vi w e v'ew f e I f rNucl r
| |
| . LNRRd., CPNRC, C A C 3 1999.
| |
| 6.6 38-1247195-00, ve TI, M.A.
| |
| Rutherford.
| |
| Referenced transmittals are:
| |
| (A) Letter from J.P.. Ortiz (RG&E) to G.T. Fairburn (FTI), FR-96-013, dated July 19, 1996.
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| INPUT DATA FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY ANALYSIS/DRAFT AIS NO. 51-1257365-00.
| |
| (B) This reference intentionally omitted.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 461
| |
| | |
| References Continued (C) Letter &om J.P. Ortiz (RG&E) to G.T. Fairburn (FTI), FR-96-022, dated August 19, 1996.
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| ACTION ITEM MM-07/10/96-8.2/INPUT TO THE MOST RECENT CONTROL ROOM DOSE ANALYSIS.
| |
| 6.7 Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, n r tec ain Ey~gjgo 3/31/95.
| |
| 6.8 ANSI/ANS 57.2-1983, e u W ac cil w P American Nuclear Society, 10/7/83.
| |
| '.9 NUREG-0612, w r Pl n, U.S. NRC, July 1980.
| |
| 6.10 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for R.E. Ginna Unit 1, Docket No. 50-244, current thru Rev.13-1, controlled copy 01243, 7/96.
| |
| 6.11 ANISNBW- n -
| |
| ' 'al 'ee '
| |
| an e, B&W Version of ANISN-W User's Manual, NPGD-TM-491, Rev.8, Filepoint 2A4, FTI Lynchburg, VA, July 1993.
| |
| 6.12 BWNT-TM-107, ORIG, DORT - Tw ' 'rete r in (BWNT Version of RSIC/ORNL Code DORT), VA, Filepoint 2A4, FTI, Lynchburg, May 1995.
| |
| 6.13 BUGLE-93 e 'n V 'ne r Br ad h - ec i i 'ved t e -V cle r Quid, DLC-175, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, April 1994.
| |
| 6.14 USAEC Reg. Guide 1.25, i ca e e c
| |
| 'n Acci el andlin cili f ilin W eac, 3/23/72.
| |
| 6.15 NUREG/CR-5009, e m the e f ed rnu Fuel in i e wer
| |
| ~~c~. Baker, D.A.;Bailey, W.J.; Beyer,C.E.; et al. Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, February 1988.
| |
| 6.16 International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 30 Supplement to Part 1, ake 'clide e, 1980.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 462
| |
| | |
| Figure 6-1 Overview of Proposed Re-racking of the Ginna Spent Fuel Pool Rack Type 4 Region 2 Region 1 4D 4E 4F
| |
| ~Rack T 3 Racks 3A, 3B, 3C,8 3D Rack Type 1 Rack 3E Rack
| |
| ~Te 2 Racks 2A 82B 4A 4B 4C poo wall - concrete Rack Type 4 cask area L
| |
| Figure 6-2 Overview of Spent Fuel Pool Concrete Wall Thicknesses N
| |
| 6''Re ion I 294 spent fuel cells 6'I
| |
| ~Re ion 2 1,075 spent 3.5'ask 31 fuel cells area concrete transfer walls canal 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 463
| |
| | |
| Appendix 6A Assumptions and Input Key assumptions and input are presented in this appendix for the calculation of radiological dose consequences for the tornado missile accident.
| |
| Table 6A-1 Assumptions and Inputs Used in Determining Offsite Doses Due to Tornado Missile Accident Inside Auxiliary Building
| |
| .':.:,":;"',:;;;;>,.:::i:;:.:';:::A'ss'u'iiiptloii'o'r:.'Inpu'ti'i;::,:,:::,':;::,:;:,;::;'":."j"I::;:t'':,::;:::;:,:.;Value;:.';:;,';: ,';;:,:::;:;.:,~,';~;::.;,:;::;:.'..;:;:,:,:,::::;I:;.:;t..~:Ba'sts <for,',ValueNp",::;:.';<i':;:j'<Ie"'.j;v~gi;::.,'.:;
| |
| Core. power, MW~ 1551 1520 plus 2% uncertainty Radial peaking factor 1.2 Conservative average value for damaged assemblies Total ¹ of rods in assembly 179 Consistent with current FH analysis
| |
| ¹ of damaged assemblies See section 3 Core source terms Iodine and noble gas activity determined with ORIGEN2 Gap activity, % I & NG, 10 Kr- Reg. guide 1.25; extended burnup factor applied to 85, 30 1-131, 12 I-131 per NUREG-5009""t Minimum water depth above damaged 23 Reg. guide 1.25 fuel assembly, tt Pool scrubbing factor elemental 133 Reg. guide 1.25 - overall effective decontamination orgamc I factor is 100.
| |
| NG I Iodine chemical species, % Iodine released from fuel to pool water, Reg. Guide elemental 99.75 1.25.
| |
| organic 0.25 Filtration None assumed Site boundary atmospheric dispersion 6.0 E-5 factor, sec/m'ow population zone boundary 3.0 E-5 Table 15.7-1 of UFSAR atmospheric dispersion factor, dose conversion factors (DCFs),
| |
| sec/m'odine ICRP 30~ '
| |
| rem/ci I-131 1.07 E6 I-132 6.29 E3 I-133 1.81 E5 I-134 1.07 E3 I-135 3.14 E4 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 464
| |
| | |
| .:,.,"jj;:;,.N:.":::;,:;;.'gjjA'ssuinption;oi..':Input''~~:~:-:;l,'g~.k.;,:
| |
| Breathing rate, m'/sec 3.47 EA Reg. guide 1.25.
| |
| Fuel exposure for impacted spent fuel 60,000 Reference 6.6(A) assembly, MWD/MTU Design missile 1490 lb wooden UFSAR Ch. 9.1.2.7 pole, 35 feet in length and 13.5" in diameter with a vertical velocity of 70 lt/sec.
| |
| Cooldown time for impacted spent fuel UFSAR Ch. 15.7.3.2 & Ch. 9.1.2 assemblies:
| |
| Region 1 (Rack Type 3) 100 hrs Region 2 (Rack Types 2, 3, &4) 60 days Table 6A-2 Tornado Missile Accident Source Terms for Region 1 (100 Hours of Decay)
| |
| ."..':Rele'a'sed::foYAu'x!31d NV;::,:.::'::.'Niiclide".'::'.:.":::.'.-:," ''i I-131 1.78E+03 I-132 1.24E+03 I-133 1.54E+02 I-134 Ne li ible I-135 1 ~ 11E-01 Kr-83m Ne li ible Kr-85m 1.07E-02 Kr-85 1.28E+04 Kr-87 Ne li ible Kr-88 Ne li ible Xe-131m 2.31E+03 Xe-133m 5.31E+03 Xe-133 2.86E+05 Xe-135m 1.77E+00 Xe-135 5.35E+02 Xe-138 Ne li ible 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 465
| |
| | |
| Table 6A-3 Tornado Missile Accident Source Terms for Region 2 (60 Days of Decay)
| |
| ,', '.<:.,:;..,':.:".3;::. '.;::.:.>x j$;:p.;::::;.;;: Activity(Ci):
| |
| :';:,.':.:;":,''.;:.i':,
| |
| :,::I.":,":::N~ Nuclide!.:,."i:::''::: Releas'e'd'',to':Aux':'Bld
| |
| "'-131 2.28E+01 I-132 1.61E-02 I-133 Ne li ible I-134 Ne li ible I-135 Ne li ible Kr-83m Ne li ible Kr-85m Ne li ible Kr-85 1.55E+04 Kr-87 Ne li ible Kr-88 Ne li ible Xe-131m 3.01E+02 Xe-133m 1.84E-02 Xe-133 2.81E+02 Xe-135m Ne li ible Xe-135 Ne li ible Xe-138 Ne li ible 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 466
| |
| | |
| Table 6A-4 Dose Conversion Factors Nh'ole'.3o'dyIDCF,.
| |
| ::.<'.Reiii-"'.m'.ICi-"s'ec".',', ;:,'Eav'e'-: .,'.
| |
| . - I-131 1.07E+06 9.70E-02 0.39 I-132 6.29E+03 5.59E-01 2.24 I-133 1.81E+05 1.50E-01 0.60 I-134 1.07E+03 6.48E-01 2.59 I-135 3.14E+04 3.64E-01 1.46 Kr-83m 1.10E-02 0.044 Kr-85m 4.00E-02 0.16 Kr-85 5.75E-'04 0.0023
| |
| 'r-87 1.98E-01 0.79 Kr-88 5.50E-01 2.2 Xe-131m 7.25E-04 0.0029 Xe-133m 5.00E-03 0.02 Xe-133 7.50E-03 0.03 Xe-135m 1.08E-01 0.43 Xe-135 6.25E-02 0.25 Xe-138 2.80E-01 1.12 Note that the whole body DCFs are calculated by multiplying the average energy of the emitted photons by 0.25 (see Section 6.2.6).
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 467
| |
| | |
| 7.0 QUALITYASSURANCE
| |
| | |
| ==7.1 DESCRIPTION==
| |
| OF SUPPLIER'S QUALITYASSURANCE PROGRAM FTI has a Quality Assurance Program for products and services designated as 'Safety-Related'nd as 'Non-Safety Related'. This program is intended to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B (Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Processing Plants) and the applicable requirements of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division I.
| |
| The Quality Assurance Program is in compliance with ANSI N45.2 and its applicable daughter documents, and any applicable requirements in ANSVASME, NQA-1 which are not covered in the ANSI N45.2 Series.
| |
| The program also establishes methods to meet the quality requirements that are imposed by contracts with the customer or that, in the absence of such provisions, are imposed by the Product Line Manager. This program also provides for the implementation of the customer-specific procedures when required by the contract.
| |
| The scope of this program covers activities beginning with the authorization to proceed under customer contract and extending through the delivery of the final product. At the option of the Product Line Manager, it may also be applied to activities performed prior to the initiation of the contract.
| |
| This program has been reviewed and approved by RG&E and has been utilized in performing work inthepast. A controlled copy oftheFTI QualityAssuranceManual(Doc. No. 56-1201212) is maintained at RG&E by G. R. Amsden, Quality Assurance.
| |
| | |
| ==7.2 DESCRIPTION==
| |
| OF QUALITYASSURANCE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION FTI is the Prime Contractor for design, licensing analysis, fabrication, and installation of spent nuclear fuel storage racks. FTI is teamed with ATEA for design and fabrication, and FCF for the licensing analysis. Peyla Construction Management (PCM) will be responsible for the removal and disposal ofthe old racks and willinstall the new racks. ATEA is a subcontractor of FTI, and FCF and PCM are subcontractors to ATEA.
| |
| FTI is responsible for the overall project coordination and integration of the resources and the team.
| |
| All work performed on the project, whether technical or administrative, will be performed in accordance with FTI's Quality Assurance Program (Doc. No. 56-1201212). Also, in accordance with the Project Management Plan (Doc. No. 56-1257505) project-specific tasks performed by FCF willutilize the FCF Quality Assurance Program (Doc. No. 56-1177617); project-specific tasks for ATEAwillutilize the ATEA Quality Assurance Program (Rev. 0, dated April 18, 1995, as audited and approved by FTI; and project-specific tasks performed at Ginna by PCM will be performed in accordance with the FII Quality Assurance Program (Doc. No. 56-1201212). Technical documents from RG&E and other organizations will be retained in the FTI Records Center and will be maintained in accordance with the contract requirements.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 468
| |
| | |
| The ATEA storage racks are categorized as 'Safety-Related'roducts and as such are required to meet or comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
| |
| 7.2.1 Organization Authority and an organization have been established under this project and are contained in the Project Management Manual noted in the above paragraphs. FTI retains the responsibility for the overall program effectiveness including work that is delegated to suppliers.
| |
| 7.2.2 Quality Assurance A Quality Assurance Program has been established that applies to all activities, products and services performed, procured and rendered on this project. FTI retains the overall responsibility for establishing and maintaining the project's Quality Assurance. The FTI Quality Assurance Program shall be performed in accordance with FTI document number 56-1201212.
| |
| 7.2.3 Design Control A design control program has been established for the project to provide a process to control design documents. These data affect the safety-related products and include for example, but are not limited to, design drawings, input for stress analysis, thermal hydraulics, seismic, physics, radiation, computer programs, materials, specifications, and system descriptions. Specifics of the design control processes are described in the FTI or subcontractors'uality Assurance Program Manuals.
| |
| 7.2.4 Procurement Document Control Procurement of safety-related products and services are specified in procurement documents.
| |
| Products and services are provided by approved suppliers.
| |
| 7.2.5 Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings Activities affecting quality of safety-related products and services are performed in accordance with documented instructions, procedures or drawings, which include appropriate quantitative and qualitative means ofverifying quality. Required actions and responsibilities for preparation, review, approval and control of these documents are established in procedures and instructions.
| |
| 7.2.6 Document Control Measures for the review, approval and issuance of documents covering safety-related products and services and their associated changes are established internally to assure technical adequacy and the inclusion of quality control requirements prior to implementation. These measures include responsibiTities for required independent reviews by qualified individuals including quality personnel for review and concurrence with respect to Quality Assurance-related aspects of documents to assure acceptability. Document control is applied to design, procurement and manufacturing documents including as-built documents and documents relating to computer codes, as well as instructions and procedures.
| |
| 7.2.7 Control of Purchased Material, Equipment, and Services When specified in the procurement document, FTI provides for Quality Assurance surveillance of suppliers during fabrication, inspection, testing and the release of safety-related products and services.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 469
| |
| | |
| For commercial 'ofF-the-shelf'tems, which are to be used as safety-related products and services, but where a specific Quality Assurance control appropriate for nuclear applications cannot be imposed in a practical manner, a receiving inspection and/or tests are performed and shall meet the acceptance criteria. These instructions are subject to the document control provisions.
| |
| Prior to placing an order with a new'upplier, an evaluation is conducted by Quality Assurance personnel and appropriate engineering and/or procurement personnel. Such an evaluation may include an audit and is conducted in accordance with applicable FTI and/or their subcontractor's Quality Assurance Program.
| |
| 7.2.8 Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components Identification requirements are established in Quality Assurance programs and are specified as necessary in the procurement documents for safety-related products and services. Identification and control procedures assure that identification is maintained on the item or on records that are traceable to the item to preclude use of incorrect or defective items. Identification of items can be traced to appropriate documentation such as design documents, procurement documents and/or inspection records. Identification of items is verified and documented prior to release of the item for further use.
| |
| 7.2.9 Control of Special Processes Established procedures are maintained to provide appropriate control over special processes for safety-related products and services. The processes that are controlled as special processes are the following: the process where direct inspection is impossible or disadvantageous; and processes where the results are highly dependent on the control of the process or the skill of the operator, or both.
| |
| Examples of these processes are welding, casting, and explosive forming.
| |
| The special process procedures and certification of qualified personnel are maintained under document control. Special processes are performed by qualified personnel and accomplished under prescribed procedural controls. Recorded evidence of verification is maintained.
| |
| 'I 7.2.10 Inspection Procedures are established that control manufacturing activities of safety-related products and services. These procedures provide control for the selection and identification of required inspection in a quality plan identifying the inspections to be performed, their location in the manufacturing process and the mandatory 'Hold Points'equired by various organizations (i.e., Quality Assurance, the customer). This document is either prepared and/or approved by the Quality Assurance organization having the responsibility for the item to be inspected.
| |
| 7.2.11 Test Control Measures are established to control the testing of safety-related products and services. These measures include identification of required testing, development of procedures, a means of assessing the adequacy of tested items, and designation of responsibility for performing the various phases of the testing activities. Tests required during manufacturing are identified in the Quality Plan of the item. The measures established for the control of special processes include a provision for identifying the necessary qualification tests.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 470
| |
| | |
| The test results are documented, evaluated, and their acceptability determined by a qualified, responsible individual or group. Modifications, repairs and replacements are tested in accordance with the original test or appropriate alternatives.
| |
| Test program requirements are incorporated as appropriated in purchase orders and will be reflected in the Quality Plan. Supplier testing activities are subject to auditing and monitoring for compliance during the surveillance activities.
| |
| 7.2.12 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment FTI maintains the means of controlling measuring and test equipment used on safety-related products and services. Programs were developed for considering such attributes as inherent stability, purpose of use, desired accuracy, and the degree of usage.
| |
| Measuring and test equipment are identified and traceable to the calibration test data and for other required documentation. The complete status of all items under the calibration system including personal acceptance gages, is recorded, maintained and controlled.
| |
| 7.2.13 Handling, Storage, and Shipping Procedures are established to control cleaning, packaging, shipping, storage and handling of safety-related products and services. Where required, these activities are accomplished by appropriately trained personnel.
| |
| The procedures include the control of cleaning, handling, storage, packaging, shipping and preservation on materials, components, and systems in accordance with design specification requirements to preclude unacceptable damage, loss, or deterioration by environmental conditions.
| |
| The identification controls include considerations for identification of inspection, use, personnel training and qualification, auditing, non-conformance, and other appropriate requirements. These procedures may be in various forms, such as manufacturing procedures, shipping instructions, drawings, manufacturing routing sheets, cleaning specifications, and procedural training booklets.
| |
| 7.2.14 Inspections, Tests, and Operating Status Procedures are established to indicate the inspection, test and operating status of safety-related products and services during fabrication, installation and testing. These procedures control the application and removal of status indicators through the use of inspection control cards, shop travelers, or other documents. These procedures also control sequence changes and the identification of non-conforming items. The procedures document the sequence of required tests, inspections, and other safety-related operations.
| |
| 7.2.15 Non-Conforming Materials, Parts, or Components Procedures are established to control the identification, documentation, segregation, review and disposition of non-conforming safety-related products and services. They include notification of affected organizations ifdisposition is other than scrap. These procedures identify individuals or groups who are authorized to dispose of and approve non-conformance and describe the segregation and/or control of non-conforming items to prevent inadvertent use.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 471
| |
| | |
| Documentation identifies the non-conforming items, describes the non-conformance, the disposition ofthe non-conformance, including reinspection requirements, and includes documented approval of the disposition. When non-conforming items are repaired or otherwise made suitable for their designed use, they are inspected and tested in accordance with the original inspection and test requirements or acceptable alternatives. The Quality Assurance Department is responsible for the review and approval of decisions proposed by Engineering.
| |
| 7.2.16 Corrective Action Procedures are established that provide corrective actions for safety-related products and services.
| |
| These procedures include the initiation and documentation of corrective actions to preclude recurrence of significant conditions adverse to quality. Implementation of corrective action is verified by responsible individuals or organizations and is documented to close out the corrective action.
| |
| Corrective action processing involves participation of Quality Assurance. These decisions are documented.
| |
| For significant conditions adverse to quality, the cause and corrective actions taken are documented and reported to management for review. Non-conformance reports are generated. These non-conformance reports are reviewed to determine the need for corrective action and are analyzed for trends. The results of these trend analyses are provided to management.
| |
| 7.2.17 Audits Procedures are established that provide a comprehensive system of Quality Assurance Program audits of activities affecting the quality of safety-related products and services. Audits are performed by qualified audit personnel using written procedures or checklists designed to provide an objective evaluation of the Quality Assurance Program and its effective implementation. Audits are planned and conducted by the quality organization responsible for its Quality Assurance Manual. Activities of the quality organization itself are audited by qualified auditors assigned by the General Management, having no direct responsibilities in the area to be audited. A written report that documents the audit results and corrective action is prepared by the team leader and distributed to the management of the organization being audited. The corrective actions to be proposed by the organization responsible for the finding are reviewed by the, quality organization or by the team leader (when the quality organization was the audited area). Verification of corrective action (including re-audit of deficient areas, where appropriate) is performed and documented.
| |
| Provisions made for preparation, performance, reporting, and closing out of suppliers'udits are similar and meet the same requirements. Audit schedules are implemented in accordance with the Quality Assurance Manual. These audits ensure that procedures and activities comply with the overall Quality Assurance Program and provide a comprehensive independent verification and evaluation of quality-related procedures and activities.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 472
| |
| | |
| S.O ENVIRONMENTALCOST/BENEFIT ASSESSMENT 8.1 NEED FOR INCREASED STORAGE CAPACITY The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has statutory and contractual obligations to accept Ginna spent fuel beginning ln 1998. RG&E, in considering its capacity needs, assessed that the DOE would not be ready to accept spent fuel in 1998. This assessment has been confirmed by recent letter from DOE dated December 17, 1996, in which the DOE notified RG&E that it will not start acceptance of Ginna spent fuel in 1998.
| |
| Early in January 1997, the DOE released a draft proposal outlining a three-phase process for private firms to accept and transport waste from civilian reactors. According to the proposal, there would be two phases prior to operation of a Federal repository. The estimated duration of the. phases is several years beyond 1998, subject to the DOE meeting the schedule for award of the contracts and Congress designating a Federal storage site. The DOE proposal, and its associated uncertainties, further confirms RG&E's need for increased storage capacity beyond 1998 to accommodate the Ginna spent fuel prior to operation of the Federal repository.
| |
| Table 5.5-1 shows the schedule of refueling outages to the end of license in September 2009.
| |
| Additional discharges were conservatively incorporated beyond September 2009 for the purpose of determining a bounding decay heat load. The bounding decay heat load is based on an inventory of fuel rods in the spent fuel pool not to exceed the number of rods contained in 1,879 intact fuel assemblies (179 fuel rods/assembly x 1,879 assemblies=336,341 fuel rods).
| |
| The current spent fuel pool inventory is as follows: (a) 782 spent fuel assemblies (intact), (b) 8 consolidated rod canisters and 2 consolidated hardware canisters (from 11 intact fuel assemblies),
| |
| 1 fuel rod storage basket, (d) 5 storage locations with non-fuel components, and (e) 1 storage location not available for storage, for a total of 799 storage locations being occupied. The current licensed capacity is 1,016 fuel assemblies. Projected spent fuel discharges are conservatively estimated at 44 spent fuel assemblies during each of the projected refueling outages. Based on the current inventory and projected spent fuel discharges, Ginna loses the capability to discharge a full-core into the spent fuel pool in September 2000.
| |
| S.2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS The construction cost for the proposed reracking, including engineering, escalation, and allowance for funds used during construction is estimated at $ 6 million.
| |
| S.3 ALTERNATIVESTO INCREASED STORAGE CAPACITY Fuel Assembly Consolidation Fuel assembly consolidation involves separation of the fuel rods from the fuel assembly hardware (grids, guide tubes, and nozzles). The nuclear industry, including RG&E, has conducted several programs over several years to demonstrate that rods can be consolidated with up to a ratio of 2 to 1 (rods &om two fuel assemblies are stored in one canister). Rod consolidation to that ratio has been demonstrated to be achievable.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 473
| |
| | |
| Utilities have also undertaken programs to consolidate assembly hardware. The programs have not achieved the desired consolidation rate of 10:1 (hardware from ten fuel assemblies are stored in one canister). Vendors have developed advanced consolidation machines to address lessons learned from the programs. These machines have not been demonstrated yet. At present, there is a degree of uncertainty with respect to the consolidation rate of hardware.
| |
| The economics of consolidation is highly dependent on the consolidation rates for fuel rods and hardware. With additional demonstiation programs, fuel consolidation has the potential to be a strong alternative to building an Independent Storage Facility (ISFSI). RG&E has prepared this Licensing Report to allow future storage of consolidated spent fuel as an alternative to an ISFSI.
| |
| At present, increasing the capacity of the spent fuel pool by reracking is a better alternative (lower cost, lower uncertainty).
| |
| Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility (ISFSI)
| |
| Constructing an ISFSI to increase capacity is not cost-effective compared with increasing capacity by reracking the spent fuel pool. There is a large fixed cost for constructing the facility and procuring the ancillary equipment for storing a limited number of storage casks. Because of this fixed cost, the cost of the ISFSI for the equivalent number of storage locations is more than 3 times the cost per location of reracking the spent fuel pool.
| |
| Shipment to another Reactor Site Shipment of spent fuel to other non-RG&E reactor sites would require an increase in the storage capacity at those sites to accommodate Ginna spent fuel assemblies. Additional capacity at non-RG&E sites would have to be designed to store Ginna 14x14 spent fuel assemblies. In addition, utilities at those sites may charge storage fees separate from the cost of the increased capacity. The proposed reracking is the most cost-efFective of all storage alternatives to increase capacity at the Ginna site. By modifying the spent fuel pool at Ginna, there are no additional costs associated with transportation to another site, modifications to accommodate 14x14 assemblies, and potential storage fees.
| |
| Other Alternatives Permanent shutdown of Ginna because of lack of storage capacity for spent fuel was not a viable alternative. The costs of a permanent shutdown are significantly higher than the cost of reracking the spent fuel pool.
| |
| 8.4 COMMITMENTOF MATERIALRESOURCES The material resources utilized in the spent fuel reracking are described in Section 1.0. These include primarily austenitic stainless steel as a structural material and borated stainless steel as a neutron absorber. The requirement for austenitic stainless steel for the reracking is a negligible amount of world production. The production ofborated stainless steel can be accommodated by manufacturers in the U.S., Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Levels of production ofborated stainless steel can be adjusted to meet significantly higher demands.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 474
| |
| | |
| The additional capacity in the spent fuel pool does not result in a permanent commitment of water, land, or air resources. The increased capacity will utilize the existing area of the spent fuel pool.
| |
| The proposed additional storage capacity in the spent fuel pool will not significantly foreclose the alternatives available with respect to any other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity.
| |
| 8.5 HEAT RELEASED TO THE ENVIRONMENT The heat removal capability ofthe spent fuel pool cooling system will remain unchanged as discussed in Section 5.4. After a shutdown, the full core will decay in the reactor vessel prior to movement to the spent fuel pool. The total heat load Rom the spent fuel assemblies, including a full core discharge, will remain within the limits of the existing spent fuel pool cooling system (Section 5.4). The heat released to the environment from this modification is bounded by existing heat loads from normal operation.
| |
| 51-1258768-01 Ginna SFP Re-racking Licensing Report Page 475}}
| |
