ML19351A246

Evaluation of Max Density Spent Fuel Rack Structural Analysis for Indian Point Station Unit 3, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML19351A246
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/30/1989
From:	Braverman J BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML100481003	List: ML19351A246
References
CON-FIN-A-3841 TAC-68233, NUDOCS 8909250021
Download: ML19351A246 (58)

Text

o 9 l l l l

APPENDIX A TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT EVALUATION OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY SPENT TUEL RACK I STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY  !

l

INDIAN POINT STATION UNIT 3  !

NRC DOCKET NO. 50-286 i l

By J. Braverman -

l t

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DIVISION 7

DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY I UPTON, NEW YORK '

I

September 1989 I

Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FIN A-3841, Task No. 13, TAC No. 68233  !

I pm '

l

I Executive summarv /

l This report describes and presents the results of the BNL i technical evaluation of the structural analysis submitted by New  !

York Power Authority (NYPA) in support of their licensing submittal  !

on the use of maximum density spent fuel racks at Indian Point  !

Station Unit 3 (I.P. Unit 3) Nuclear Power Plant. The review was conducted to ensure that the racks meet all structural requirements  !

as defined in the NRC Standard Review Plan and the NRC OT Position i for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Pool Storage and Handling i applications.

The proposed maximum density spent fuel storage rack modifica- l tion involves the installation of twelve free-standing, self-supporting modules of varying sizes arranged next to one another.

Each rack module consists of individual cells of square cross-section, each designed to accommodate one fuel assembly. Since the l .

racks are neither anchored to the pcol floor or walls nor connected  ;

i to each other, during an earthquake, the racks would be free to slide and tilt. Because of the nonlinear nature of this design,  !

a time history analysis was required to characterize the seismic  ;

response of the fuel racks. i l

The BNL review focused primarily on the seismic analysis of '

the fuel rack modules because of the complexity of the analysis  !

nethod and the number of simplifying assumptions that were required in developing the dynamic models. BNL also reviewed other analyses performed by the Licensee including fuel handling accident i analyses, thermal analyses, and spent fuel pool analyses. l During the course of the review, a number of questions were raised regarding the adequacy of the fuel rack dynamic models.

• Concerns were raised that single rack models may underpredict seismic forces and displacements that would occur in the real multiple rack fuel pool environment. The une of a two-dimensional ,

(2-D) model to predict the nonlinear response due to three '

perpendicular and simultaneous inputs was another major concern.

Concerns were also raised regarding the adequacy of the fuel racks ,

to sustain impact loads. To address such concerns, the Licensee -

provided additional information and performed additional studies, to demonstrate the adequacy of the maximum density racks.

The additional studies indicated that in general, the forces from the design basis single rack analyses (based on consolidated fuel) are greater than the forces from the multiple rack analyses (based on standard fuel) and comparable to the forces from the i additional parametric analysis using 1% damping (based on standard fuel). To a large extent this occurred because the design of tne racks was based on the larger forces generated by either the ,

consolidated fuel or standard fuel. Since the consolidated fuel mass is much larger than the standard fuel, the seismic forces were lii l

__ .- ._....m-, . _ . , , . _ , _ _ . - . - - _ _ _ . - . - .

I i

J also larger which compensated for any unconservatisms in the analytical methodology. Currently, NYPA is requesting licensing approval for the racks considering standard fuel only. As for rack to rack inpact forces and displacements, the multiple rack analyses  :

resulted in the maximum values for these responses. In spite of '

the larger inpact forces and displacements, the structural adequacy of the racks, fuel assemblies, and pool structure under the ,

postulated load combinations was demonstrated. These results  !

coupled with the conservatism present in the analyses demonstrate i the adequacy of the fuel rack design.

Based on the BNL review of the Licensee's analysis, it is concluded that the proposed I.P. Unit 3 maximum density fuel racks and spent fuel pool are designed with sufficient capacity to withstand the effects of the postulated environmental and abnormal loads.

9 1

t i

l

[

iv

l i

TABLI OF CONTENTS i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i

1.1 Puroese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,

1.2 Backaround . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 >

1.3 Scene of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1'

2.0 ACCEPTANCE CRIT'4 RIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.0 TUEL RACK DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 Fuel Rock Seismic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. 4.1.1 Dynamic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. 4.1.2 Fluid Coupling Effects . . . . . . . . . . . 6 '

4.1.3 Friction Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 i 4.1.4 Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.5 Seismic Input Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ,

4.1.6 Analysis Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.7 Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Evaluation of Results .

4.1.8 . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2 Multiple Rack Seismic Analysis . . , . . . . . . . 12 4.*e.1 Multi-Rack Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 l 4.2.2 Multi-Rack Analysis /Results . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.3 Multi-Rack Bounding Analysis . . . . . . . . 15 l 4.3 Thermal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4 Overall Evaluation of Seismic Analysis Results . . 16 l

4.5 Fue_1 Handling Accident Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.6 Spent Puel Pool Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.6.1 Loads and Load Combinations . . . . . . . . 18 '

4.6.2 Spent Puel Pool Structure Analysis . . . . 19

5.0 CONCLUSION

S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20  ;

6.0 REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 l

l l

y l

l L

l u

_ __ __ u-

l l

l l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

I 1.1 Purcose l l

This technical evaluation report (TER) describes and presents I the results of the BNL review of NYPA's licensing submittal on the .

use of maximum density fuel racks at I.P. Unit 3 with respect to l their structural adequacy.

1.2 Backaround The maximum density racks will be placed in the spent fuel pool (elevation 54' - 74") located in the fuel storage but.1 ding.

With the planned installation of the twelve racks, there will be a total capacity of 1345 cells.

The proposed racks consist of individual cells of square cross-section, each of which accommodates a single PWR fuel

, assembly. The cells are assembled into distinct modules of varying i sizes which are to be arranged within the existing spent fuel pool  !

as shown in Figure 1. Each module is free-standing and self- '

supporting. l The Licensee provided a summary of his safety analysis and  ;

evaluation of the proposed racks in a Licensing Report (Ref. 1). '

The report described the structural analysis and design of the new ,

fuel racks. It also gave a description of postulated dropped fuel  ;

and jammed fuel accident analyses. 5 Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) reviewed the Licensing .

Report and generated a list of additional information needed to l complete the review. This request for additional information was  :

transmitted to the Licensee in Reference 2. The Licensee provided '

the information and responses in a later submittal (Ref. 3a) . BNL also participated in an audit of the fuel rack analyses conducted  :

at the plant site on 3/9 to 3/10/89. At this meeting additional documents including the latest Seismic Analysis Report and Mechani-

cal Report were provided for review. In addition, a meeting was held on July 19, 1989 at the NRC to resolve many of the open items. '

Additional studies were subsequently performed with the results presented in Reference 3b.

1.3 Scone of Review The objective of the BNL technical review was to evaluate the adequacy of the Licensee's structural analysis and design of the proposed maximum density spent fuel racks and spent fuel pool. Due i to the complex nature of the fuel rack seismic analysis, the primary focus of the review was on the adequacy of the nonlinear

fuel rack models and their dynamic analysis. The structural evaluaticn of fuel racks subjected to the droppsd fuel and jammed i

fuel hand 1179 accidents described in the Licensen's report (Ref.

1

1) were included in this review. However, the definition of these postulated accidents and their parameters (drop height, uplift force, etc.) were beyond the scope of this review. A limited review of the spent fuel pool was conducted to ensure that uppro-priate loads, methodology and acceptance criteria were applied.

2.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The acceptance criteria for the evaluation of the spent fuel rack applications are provided in the NRC OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications (Ref. 4). Structural requirements and criteria given in this position paper were updated and included as Appendix D to standard Review Plan 3.8.4, " Technical Position on Spent Fuel Pool Racks,"

(Ref. 5). These documents state that the main safety function of the spent fuel pool and fuel racks is to maintain the spent fuel assemblies in a safe configuration through all environmental and abnormal Icadings, such as earthquakes, and impact due to spent fuel cask drop, drop of a spent fuel assembly, or drop of any other heavy object during routine spent fuel handling.

Section 2 of SRP 3.8.4, Appendix D gives the applicable Codes, Standards and Specifications. Construction materials should conform to Section III, Subsection NF of the ASME Code. Design, fabrication and installation of stainless steel spent fuel racks may be performed based upon the ASME Code Subsection NP require-ments for Class 3 component supports.

Requirements for seismic and impact loads are discussed in l Section 3 of Appendix D. It states that seismic excitation along three orthogonal directions should be imposed simultaneously for

( the design of the new rack system. Submergence in water may be taken into account. The effects of submergence are considered on a case-by-case basis. Impact loads generated by the closing of fuel assembly to fuel rack gaps during a seismic excitation should be considered for local as well as overall effects. It should also be demonstrated that the consequent loads on the fuel assemblies do not lead to fuel damage. Loads generated from other postulated events may be acceptable if sufficient analytical parameters are provided for review.

Loads and load combination requirements are provided in Section 4. Specific loads and load combinations are acceptable if they are in conformance with Section 3.8.4-II.3 and Table 1, Appendix D of the Standard Review Plan. Changes in temperature distribution should be considered in the design of the pool structure. Temperature gradients across the rack structure due to differential heating effects between a full and an empty cell should be incorporated in the rack design. Maximum uplift forces j from the crane should be considered in the design.

2

l l

l Section 5 discusses design and analysis procedures. It states that design and analysis procedures in accordance with Section ,

l 3.8.4-II.4 of the Standard Review Plan are acceptable. The effects of gaps, sloshing water, and increase of effective mass and damping due to submergence in water should be quantified. Details of the mathematical model including a description of how the important parameters are obtained should be provided.

Structural acceptance criteria are provided in Section 6. The i acceptance criteria are given in Table 1 of Appendix D. For impact loading, the ductility ratios utilized to absorb kinetic energy should be quantified. When considering seismic loads, factors of safety against gross sliding and overturning of the racks shall be  ;

in accordance with section 3.8.5-II.5 of the Standard Review Plan unless it can be shown that either (a) sliding motions are minimal, impacts between adjacent racks and between racks and walls are prevented and the factors of safety against tilting are met, or (b) 1 sliding and tilting motions will be contained within geometric constraints and any impact due to the clearances is incorporated. .

3.0 TUEL RACK DESCRIPTION r

The maximum density storage rack configuration consists of two regions, identified as Region 1 and Region 2. Region 1 is designed for storage of unirradiated fuel with an enrichment as specified in Reference 1. It provides space for storage of partially burned '

fuel and a full core unload. Region 2 is designed for storage of irradiated fuel with initial enrichment and burnup as specified in  ;

Reference 1. Region 1 consists of three 80-cell racks, providing 240 storage spaces. Region 2 consists of nine racks ranging in

, size from 104 to 132 cells, providing 1105 storage cells.

The total 1345 storage cells are arranged in twelve free-standing rack modules as shown in Figure 1. Physical data for each rack is provided in Table 1. Gaps of 1.5" are provided by spacers between racks in Region 1 and between Region 1 and Region 2 rack i interfacc. All other racks are installed with nominally no gap.

• The spent fuel storage rack design is a welded honeycomb array of stainless steel boxes without a grid frame structure. Each cell '

has a welded-in bottom plate (either \" or %" thick) to support the fuel assembly. A central hole in the bottom plate provides for cooling water flow. All storage cells are bounded on four sides by Boral poison sheets, except on the periphery of the pool rack array.

Region 1 consists of square storage cells which are spaced in both directions by a narrow rectangular water box (see Figure 2).

The Boral poison sheets are captured between adjacent walls of the storage cells and water boxes. The required space for the poison is provided by local round raised areas coined in the box walls to half the thickness of the poison sheets. All boxes are fusion 3

1

. I welded together at these local raised areas. The poison sheets are i i

scalloped along their edges to clear the raised areas, which also serve to retain the sheets laterally. See Figure 3 for a typical i elevation view of the cells. l Region 2 consists of square storage cells with a poison sheet captured between adjacent boxes (see Figures 4 and 5) in the same '

manner as described in Region 1. ,

The rack nodules and their supports are fabricated from ASTM '

A-240, Type 304 austenitic stainless steel sheet and plate material. Each rack is supported and leveled on four screw f pedestals as shown in Figure 6. These pedestals rest on bridge  ;

plates where it is necessary to protect the fuel pool liner seam t welds from novaments of the rack feet. Tables 1 and 2 summarize  !

the physical data for each module type.

4.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

1  !

l ,

4.1 Fuel Rack Seismic Analysis The spent fuel storage racks are seismic Category I equipment required to remain functional during and after a safe shutdown  ;

earthquake (SSE). As described in Section 3.0, the proposed racks consist of 12 distinct free-standing modules which are neither anchored to the pool floor, attached to the side walls, nor connected to each other. Any rack may be completely loaded with  ;

fuel asserblies, partially loaded, or completely empty. The fuel assentlies are free to rattle within their storage cells.

Seismic forces are transmitted to the racks through friction at the support leg to pool floor interface. If seismic displace-ments are large enough, the racks can slide and the support legs can lift off and impact the pool floor. Because of these non- ,

linearities, a time history analysis of nonlinear rack models was '

required to characterize the seismic response of the fuel racks.

BNL's review of the details of the modeling technique and analysis nethod is described in the following sections.

4.1.1 Dynamic Model ,

The design basis analysis is a 2-D single rack analysis described in the Safety Analysis Report (Ref. 1). The 2-D single rack model is shown on Figure 7. It consists of a center stick representing the fuel and another stick (shown on each side of the fuel) representing the rack structure. There are six levels of masses considered in the model for each of the sticks. Generally, one tenth of the mass is lumped at the base and at the top node while one fifth of the mass is lumped at the other four inter-mediate nodes for the rack, fuel, and fluid mass.

4

, . . , . ,,,_.,,._,,,_-_,__.____,_,_.m.- . - - - . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ . , . . _ _ .

1 l

1 I

Each fuel mass is free to translate horizontally (rattle) i within the specified fuel to rack gap and impact the rack struc- i ture. Impact between the fuel and the rack cells was modelled by J two gap-spring elements at each nodal elevation. The gaps repre- )

sent the clearance on either side of a fuel assembly placed '

centrally in the cell. The spring at each elevation represents the total contact stiffness between the rack and the fuel assemblies.

i During impact, the fuel assembly grid and cell wall act as springs  ;

in series. Therefore, the contact stiffness at each nodal eleva- '

tion was determined by considering the stiffness of the grid and  :

cell wall acting in series. ,

Beam elements connect the lumped masses. The rack be:m i elements model the flexibility of the rack structure while the fuel beam elements model the flexibility of the fuel assembly. The element stif fness properties were determined by calculation and by l tests on actual rack cells containing fusion welds, t

Horizontal responses to the seismic motion of the ground were j obtained by evaluating the loadings for two different boundary ,

conditions, as follows:

1. The horizontal motion was restrained by a friction force equal to the fric'clon coefficient times the normal force. The minimum friction factor of 0.2 between the rack pedestals and >

the floor was utilized for this case. These results gave the maximum distance the racks will move during a seismic event.

2. Differential motion between the pedestal and the floor was provented. This was done by placing a spring (shown as element 11 on Figure 7) between the rack and a fixed point.

This case corresponds to the upper bound coefficient of friction of 0.8. '

The horizontal spring is physically equivalent to the flexi-bility of the rack walls between the pedestal and the centerline of the rack. The wall flexibilities are due to the fusion weld joint flexibi.11 ties and the shear flexibilities of the cell walls.

The range of friction coefficient values are discussed further in Section 4.1.3. t i

Rack to rack impact gaps are not considered since the Licensee believed that the racks would move in phase due to the strong hydrodynamic fluid coupling forces. Rack to wall impact gaps are not applicable since in the 0.8 friction coefficient case, a spring was placed between the rack and a fixed point. As for the 0.2 friction coefficient case which represents the sliding case, the rack is free to displace horizontally. Since the calculated rack displacements were much smaller than the rack to wall gap, there was no need to model the rack to wall impact gap spring. t 5

o  !

i The assumption of in-phase rack notion was questioned during l the review of the I.P. Unit 3 fuel racks. In reality, the racks  :

have a nominally 0 inch gap from one another and will impact one i another with some out of phase motion. The single rack model could not account for this behavior which may be quite important. This concern was separately addressed by the Licensee in the multiple rack analyses discussed in section 4.2.  !

Another concern with the model was the use of spring element $

no. 11 for the 0.8 friction coefficient case. In reality this  !

flexibility is internal to the rack and should be present for both  !'

0.2 and 0.8 friction coefficient cases. The significance of modelling this parameter externally to a fixed point (ground) and using it only in the 0.8 friction coefficient case was also addressed in the multiple rack analyses discussed in section 4.2.  !

Fluid coupling between rack and fuel assemblies, and between '

rack and adjacent racks or walls was simulated by including inertial coupling terms in the equations of motion. This is ,

discussed in detail below. Fluid damping between rack and fuel assemblies, and between rack and adjacent racks was conservatively ,

neglected in the model. In addition, the form drag opposing the '

notion of the fuel assemblies and the racks through the water was ,

neglected. j Numerous design basis (DB) runs were made to cover many possible permutations of model parameters. These variations are ,

shown in Table 3. They cover the following important model/

analysis permutations:

1. rack size - 132 cell and 80 cell racks

2. friction coeff. .2 and .8

3. direction - NS and EW I

4. fuel - consolidated and standard (normal) ,

5. seismic load - SSE and OBE  !

4.1.2 Fluid Coupling Effects The effects of submergence of the fuel racks in a pool of water has a significant effect on their seismic response. The dynamic rack model incorporated inertial coupling (fluid coupling) terms in the equations of motion to account for this effect. For >

two bodies (mass m3 and m2) adjacent to each other in a frictionless i fluid medium, Newton's aguations of motion have the form:

(ma+M33) N - M : N = applied forces on mass m3 3 3 ,

M 23 N + (m a + M )'*, X = applied forces on mass m X 3 , X: denote absolute accelerations of mass mi and m, respec-tively. M33 M 33, M23 , and M are fluid coupling coefficients which l

depend on the shape of the bodies and their relative disposition.

6 i

, s

- -- _ _ ._. __ , - , , - . - .- , ,, . . , . , . , , ~ , - - - . . - - - , , - . . _ . - _ _ - - - . , . . , , .

The basic theory is summarized in a paper by Fritz (Ref. 8). The equations indicate that the of fact of the fluid is to add a certain amount of mass to the body (Mn to body 1), and an external force which is propertional to the acceleration of the adjacent body (mass n ) . Thus the acceleration of one body affects the force on the adjacent body. The force is a strong function of the int.erbody gap, reaching large values for very small gaps. It should be noted that fluid coupling is based on fluid inettial effects and does not constitute damping. Fluid damping was not included in the model.

Fluid coupling terms were includud in the equations of action for fuel masses vibrating within the racks and for racks vibrating adjacent to other racks or the pool wall. In the single rack analysis, the fluid coupling terns for fuel bundles within the rack cells were based on the methodology presented in Reference 6 (Dong) for standard fuel and Reference 7 (Stokey et al.) for consolidated fuel. Dong's nethodology considers the vibration of an array of circular rods immersed in an infinite pool of water. The added mass coefficient is a function of the gap between the rods, the radius of the rods and the water displaced by the rods. The use of Dong's nothodology considers the fluid flow through the fuel bundles. Since standard fuel assemblies are not channelled (rectangular enclosure) as in consolidated fuel assemblies, the use of Dong's methodology is considered more realistic and is thus acceptable.

The Stokey (et. al) methodology used for consolidated fuel, determined the equations for calculating hydrodynamic masses for an infinitely long rigid rectangular box inside a rigid infinitely long rectangular outer box / pool. The formulation developed for this case has also been confirmed by actual tests and thus is considered to be acceptable.

For rack to wall fluid coupling, the methodology presented by Fritz (Ref. 8) case 13 was utilized. This formulation considers a thin infinitely long plate of a given width vibrating in a fluid j

near a rigid wall boundary. This case has been used in the past for other fuel rack submittals to quantify the rack to wall fluid coupling terms. It has been determined to provide a reasonable estimate of the fluid coupling that exists for the configuration of the rack to wall vibration in water.

4.1.3 Friction Effects Friction elements were used at the bottom of rack support leg elements of the nodel. The value of the coefficient of friction was based on documented test results given in Reference 9. The j results of 199 tests performed on austenitic stainless steel plates

! submerged in water showed a mean value of coefficient of friction

( to be 0.103 with a standard deviation of 0.125. Based on twice the l standard dr/f ation, the upper and lower bounds are 0.753 and 0.253, respectively. Two separate analyses were performed for each load 7

L

case with values of coefficient of friction equal to 0.2 (lower limit) and placing spring element no. 11 between the rack and ground which is comparable to a 1.0 coefficient of friction (upper limit).

The use of both an upper and lower bounding value for the coefficient of friction is judged to be appropriate. Previous studies have indicated that low friction results in maximum sliding response of the racks while high friction results in maximum rocking or tilting response. Consideration of both cases should provide worst case displacements, stresses and impact loads.

4.1.4 Damping Damping of the rack action would develop from material hysteresis (material damping), structural deformation of the interconnected components (structural damping) and fluid damping effects. In the analyses of the I.P. Unit 3 racks 4% structural damping was utilized during the SSE and OBE.

In support of the use of 4% for SSE and OBE the Licensee referred to tests (documented in " Experimental and Finite Element Evaluation of Spent Fuel Rack Damping and Stiffness," by Scavuzzo, et al. , September 1986) which demonstrates that the unique sandwich

, construction of U.S. Tool & Die racks provide a seismically designed structure with built-in damping to absorb earthquake energy. However, the use of 4% damping for SSE and OBE reraained a concern because it is not in agreement with the I.P. Unit 3 FSAR Table 16.1-1 which requires 14 damping for OBE and SSE.

Section IV (3) of the NRC OT Position (Ref. 4) states that for plants where dynamic data are available, e.g., floor response spectra, the design and analysis of the new rack system may be performed by using either the existing parameters including the old damping values or new parameters in accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61. The use of existing input With new damping values in Regulatory Guide 1.61 is not acceptable.

l

! It should be noted (as explained in Section 4.1.5) that the seismic input notion to the racks was appropriately developed

, considering 1% damping; however, the structural damping in the l

model used 4% dampir.g which was not acceptable based on the above.

l To address the significance of this, a study was done for the 132 l cell single rack, coefficient of friction of 0.8, SSE, standard l fuel, for N-S and E-W using 1% damping. The results for this case in terms of total resultant foot loads were compared to the 4%

damping case. The forces for the 14 damped case were much higher; however, when compared to the consolidated fuel loads which were the bounding loads used for the design of the racks, the forces were only 2.2% higher, 8

l l

Thus- the use of 4% damping while inappropriate, was con- ,

sidered acceptable on the basis of the very conservative bounding I loads used in the design of the fuel racks. This occurred because the consolidated fuel weighs approximately 3,026 pounds compared to the standard fuel weight of about 1610 pounds. The extra mass l resulted in larger seismic forces and since NYpA is requesting j licensing approval for standard fuel, that conservatism was i

sufficient to address the use of the higher damping value.

4.1.5 Seismic Input Motion The seismic loads applied to the I.P. Unit 3 fuel rack model were two acceleration time histories corresponding to the North- l South and East-West direction. For the vertical direction an  !

equivalent static load method was utilized as described in Section 4.1.6. The N-S and E-W motions were synthetically developed time I histories which were cased on the fuel pool design response spectra. The two time histories are shown in Figures 8 and 10 for the SSE load case. The artificial tJue histories were checked by '

. the Licensee for statistical indepenlence between the two motions 4

and they were found to be acceptable.

A comparison of the pool design rasponse spectra and spectra generated from the synthetic time history was generated at 1% )

damping and is presented on Figures 9 and 11. The broadened design spectra were used to make the comparison with the response spectra of the synthetic time histories. The comparison demonstrates that the spectra from the synthetic time hictory bounds the required floor response spectra and is thus acceptable.

To permit the use of the existing fuel pool design response

! spectra, the Licensee determined the increased mass of the pool considering the new maximum density racks with fuel. Since the increase in mass was small (approximately 5%), it was concluded that the increased mass due to the maximum density racks should not significantly affect the overall dynamic response of the building.

I Based on the Licensee's description and the information reviewed, the methodology used to develop the two seismic input time histories for the fuel rack seismic analysis is acceptable. -

4.1.6 Analysis Method j

The analytical model described above was analyzed using the RACKoE computer code. RACK 0E is a special purpose 2-D nonlinear finite element program developed primarily to analyze fuel rack

, behavior resulting from seismic disturbances. The program solves j

the equations of motion explicitly using " Euler's Extrapolation Formula."

The essential features of RACKOE were verified by analyzing simplified racks in the pest with ANSYS and comparing the results 9

4 to RACK 0E. These runs included fluid coupling and impact effects.

Liftoff effects and structural damping were verified by hand calculations. Subsequently, sliding capability considering coefficient of friction was included in the program and verified by computer runs made with ANSYS.

Based on the above discussion and the use of the program in the licensing of fuel racks for other plants, the use of RACK 0E is considered acceptable.

The rack nodel was subjected to each of the three components of earthquake separately. The horizontal seismic analysis was done using the time history method of analysis. The N-S notion with dead weight was analyzed and the E-W motion with dead weight was analyzed separately. The method of analysis accounted for the nonlinearities inherent in the spent fuel storage racks, which includes fuel to rack wall inpacts, rack sliding, and vertical impact due to rack tipping, i . The vertical seismic analysis was performed separately using the equivalent static load nethod. Since the vertical natural frequency is below 33 hz. a factor of 1.5 was applied to the peak acceleration of the applicable vertical floor response spectra.

In accordance with I.P. Unit 3 TSAR, the vertical spectrum was assumed equal to two-thirds of the horizontal spectrum. The above procedure resulted in a vertical equivalent static acceleration of 0.539 for the SSE. This value was applied to the dead weight to obtain the vertical seismic forces.

The vertical seismic reaction forces were combined with the horizontal seismic forces (after subtracting out the dead weight) using the square root of the sum of the squares method (SRSS).

Two major concerns with the method of analysie described above were identifjed. The use of the equivalent static method to a system that responds in a nonlinear manner was questioned.

Secondly, since the rack behavior under the postulated earthquake will be strongly influenced by the three components of the earth-quake, it is questionable if the SRSS method of combination for the responses of the three components of the earthquake is a conser-vative method considering the nonlinearities present in the rack installation. It is expected that rack sliding, tilting, twisting, and impacts with the floor and other racks would be strongly influenced not only by the given horizontal motion and dead weight but by the simultaneous application of both horizontal and vertical seismic actions.

The first concern with the use of an equivalent static load method was addressed by the Licensee by performing a study. A dynamic analysis was subsequently performed for a 132 cell single rack with consolidated fuel for the SSE event. The analysis considered a combined vertical and horizontal time history input 10

1 1

l l ,,

? -(N-S and vertical then E-W and vertical). The maximum co-direc- -

tional vertical response was obtained using the SRSS method. The '

maximum vertical force at the base of the rack on two pedestals was calculated to be equal to 361 kips (including dead weight). This -

was smaller than the 382 kips (including dead weight) calculated for the SRSS of three responres using the equivalent static method for the vertical direction. In fact the 361 kips would be even smaller because, the vertical seismic component is included twice; once in N-S with vertical, then E-W with vertical. Thus, in this particular instance the use of the equivalent static method resulted in a larger rack response than the limited dynamic analysis.

The second concern, relating to the use of the SRSS combi-nation method for the responses from each of the three independent analyses, was addressed by performing an additional very conserva-tive analysis, The model utilized to address this concern and to resolve several other questions was a multiple-rack model. The j , details of the model, analysis methodology, and results is .

, described in Section 4.2.

4.1.7 Analysis Results p The RACKOS program computed displacements and forces at each l- instant of time during the earthquake. Stresses in the rac). were computed from maximum pedestal forces and accelerations at the center of mass of the racks. D'Alemberts principal was used to calculate the accelerations of the center of mass of the rack. The calculated stresses were checked against the design limits. The load combinations and acceptance limits were reviewed and were found to agree with those presented in USNRC OT Position letter (P.o f . 41 F Maximum rack displacements, vertical and horizontal pedestal forces and maximum rack impact forces are presented in Table 3 for the single rack design basis runs. Maximum stresses and safety factors at cr:6tical rack locations are summarized in Table 4. The results in Table 4 for the Region 1 rack are based on the design basis analysis for consolidated fuel at 4% damping. The results for t.% Region 2 rack are based on regular fuel at 1% damping which came from the special study which addressed the concern of proper damping values (see Section 4.1.4).

With regard to the potential damage to the fuel resulting from fuel to cell wall impacts, the Licensee indicated that lateral and vertical impact between the fuel and the rack would not damage the fuel. The results of the dynamic seismic analyses of the rack demonstrated that maximum fuel to cell wall impact force for one standard fuel assembly was only 276 pounds at the worst elevation under the SSE. Thus, the adequacy of the fuel assemblies were judged to be acceptable.

11 1

I i

s t

4.1.8 Evaluation of Results The results of the Licensee's seismic analyses indicated that all stresses in the racks would meet their allowables and impact loads on fuel assemblies would not damage the fuel. In addition, the results of the single rack analyses show no impacts would occur with the pool walls.

However, considering the potentially unconservative modeling assumptions regarding multiple rack behavior, in phase motion between racks (no impacts), external spring to ground for 0.8 -

coef ficient of friction case, and the SRSS combination of the three independent analyses, the Licensee performed additional analyses to address such concerns. These analyses are summarized in Section 4.2 and the overall assessment of the seismic analysis results is given in Section 4.4.

4.2 Multiple Rack Seismic Analysis

' i

' -As a result of concerns related to the adequacy of a single rack model in predicting forces and displacements that would occur if multi-rack effects were considered, additional analyses were

, performed. These multi-rack analyses also addressed concerns related to the assumption of in phase motion between racks, the use '

of an external spring to ground for 0.8 coefficient of friction case, and the SRSS combination of results from the three indepen-dent analyses corresponding to each direction. A description of these additional analyses and their results are provided below.

4.2.1 Multi-Rack Model This seismic analysis consisted of a row of three racks to investigate the adequacy of the deign basis single rack models in predicting the response of fuel racks in the actual multi-rack fuel pool environment. An issue of particular concern was that unlike t

the single rack analyses which did not have impacts with one another or the pool wall, in a multi-rack environment racks would impact one another and possibly the pool walls. Although the walls were originally designed to accommodate seismic loads from the existing fuel racks, impact loads on the wall could damage the ,

walls or liner resulting in unacceptable leakage of water from the pool. In addition, no calculations were available to demonstrate the design adequacy of the racks under impact loads because no impacts were anticipated.

The following provides a description of the modeling para-meters used in the 2-D multi-rack analysis:

o Two multi-rack models were developed, one for region 1 l and another for region 2. Each model contained a row of l

three racks. The region 1 model consisted of the East row of 80 cell racks (see Figure 12) . The region 2 model 12

, 7

~

S.,

i :

a f ,

consisted of the North row of 132 cell racks (see Figure 13).  ;

o The fuel loading for each rack was; for the region 1 model (North to South) ~ \ full, full, and empty and for  ;

the region 2.model (West to East) - full, full, and empty. This loading was selected to promote out of phase i

, response and maximum. rack displacement. Normal unchan- l neled fuel was considered in this analysis. l o The multi-rack analysis was performed for coefficients i of friction of 0.2 and 0.8 to cover the lower and upper -

limits. In both cases the flexibility of the rack -

(spring no, 11 in the single rack model) was correctly modelled internally to the rack.

o The rack to wall gaps corresponded to those shown on the .

drawings. Rack to rack gaps assumed for fluid coupling '

, calculations were l\ inches for the region 1 racks and

, 1" for region 2 racks. Rack to rack gaps used for impact springs were 4 inch for both regions. The l\ inch gaps <

used for fluid coupling in region 1 matches the actual ,

gaps. The 1 inch gaps for fluid coupling in region 2 were very conservative since the actual gaps are .'

nominally 0 inch.

o The seismic analysis for the region 1 racks was performed

• in the N-S direction while the analysis for region 2

,' racks was performed in the E-W direction.. The higher SSE

l. motions were analyzed for all of these cases.

l Sketches of the model used for all of the multi-rack analyses are provided in Figure 14, and a description of the model is as follows:

The two-dimensional three rack model consists of, for each rack, a center stick representing the rack and one stick repre-senting the fuel. There are six levels of masses considered in the model for each of the sticks, one at the base level and five above L the base. One-tenth of the mass is lumped at the base, one-fifth i at the next four levels, and one-tenth at the top of the rack for l rack, fuel, and fluid mass. >

The fluid hydrodynamic coupling terms for relative motion between the rack and wall or adjacent rack are computed using the Fritz model. The fluid coupling terms for the fuel consider flow through the bundle and is based on Dong.

Potential impacts between fuel and rack, rack to rack, and rack to wall are considered at each of the mass levels. Stiffness for the linpact springs correspond to the local flexibility of the rack and is calculated from test results. The rack stick models 13 J

,- .~. , . . _ . , , , ,.m_ _ _

e the flexibility of the rack in flexure. The fuel sticks model the I' flexibility of the fuel. The horizontal flexibility of the rack from the center of the mass to the support legs which was modelled externally to ground for the 0.8 coefficient of friction case (see Section 4.1.1), was correctly modelled internally to the rack (see l Figure 14, spring element nos. 13, 26, and 34). Rack sliding is modelled by a sliding surface at the base of the supports. The friction force is the concurrent normal force multiplied by the coefficient of friction at a specific time during the seismic event.

4.2.2 Multi-Rack Analysis /Results The 2-D multi-rack model shown in Figure 14 was analyzed with the same RACK 0E computer program described in Section 4.1.6. The -

N-S time history and the vertical time history were applied simultaneously for the region 1 multi-rack model while the E-W time history and vertical time history were applied simultaneously for the region 2 multi-rack model. The horizontal time histories were

, the sama as those utilized for the design basis single rack analysis (see section 4.1.5). In all of the multi-rack analyses, the submerged dead weight of the racks and fuel were included simultaneously to permit the proper calculation of the frictional resisting forces. ,

The key responses (pedestal forces, impact forces, and displacements are presented in Table 5 for the region 1 model and Table 6 for the region 2 model. Comparisons with the design basis single rack analysis are presented in Table 8. From Table 8, it is evident that the design basis pedestal forces considering standard fuel are comparable to the multi-rack results. However, the design basis pedestal forces considering consolidated fuel are substantially higher than the multi-rack results. In contrast though, the multi-rack analysis resulted in larger displacements than the single rack design basis results. However, no impact

occurred in the multi-rack analyses for the region 2 (132-cell) l racks. Table 5 indicates that impact forces are generated though l for the region 1 (80-cell) racks.

L The multi-rack analyses described above in-effect addressed the identified concerns dealing with (1) multi-rack behavior, (2) the assumption of in-phase motion used in the single rack design basis analyses, and (3) the use of an external spring to ground and its use only in the .8 coefficient of friction case. In utilizing a multi-rack model and incorporating the changes in the model to address the above concerns, the forces from the design basis single i rack analysis were shown to be greater than the multi-rack results.

Thus, it is concluded the three concerns identified above have been adequately addressed. The adequacy of the racks under impact loads is discussed separately in Section 4.2.3.

l l

14 l

l-

~ -

')

l 4.2.3 Multi-Rack Bounding Analysis A major concern which arose during the review of the single rack seismic analysis was the independent analysis of the rack in the E-W, N-S, and vertical directions and then, combining the co- '

directional responses using the SRSS method. This concern was addressed by performing an additional 2-D multi-rack analysis based on very conservative assumptions. Since the RACKOE program was not '

yet fully operational for 3-D analysis, it was agreed to perform the additional analysis using very conservative model parameters in an effort to obtain an upperbound on the expected response that a 3-D model would provide.

The multi-rack bounding analysis utilized the same basic -

multi-rack model as described in Section 4.2.1 with the following 1 critical parameters: ,

Region 2 (132-cell racks, std. fuel)

) -

Event - SSE l

Rack to rack fluid coupling - 1 inch Rack to rack impact gap - 1/32 inch ,

Coeff. of friction - 0.2 and 0.8 Damping - 2%

This model in effect addresses and combines all of the significant concerns identified earlier in this TER.

The results of this analysis is shown in Table 7. Comparisons with the other set of multi-rack analyses and the design basis single rack analyses are presented in Table 8. From Table 8 it is evident that the pedestal _ forces from the multi-rack bounding analysi s are larger than the other multi-rack analyses, comparable to the design basis single rack results for standard fuel, and smaller than the design basis single rack results for consolidated fuel. Since the racks were also designed for the single rack -

consolidated fuel loads, the racks are structurally adequate for the multi-rack bounding analysis loads as well.

However,' the multi-rack bounding analysis generated rack to rack impact loads which were not present in the single rack analyses nor in the multi-rack - region 2 (132 cell rack) analysis.

The rack design was checked for the additional impact loads generated by the multi-rack bounding analysis. The cell walls were checked for buckling which resulted in a maximum compressive stress of 0.59 ksi. The allowable buckling stress is 1.37 kai resulting in a safety factor of 2.32. The allowable buckling stress of 1.37 kai was calculated using 2/3 of the critical

- buckling stress in accordance with the ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF and Appendix XVII-2000. The critical buckling stress was determined using the Euler buckling equation and conservatively considering the cell walls as a 9" column with pinned ends. The fusion welds were also checked for the impact loads in addition to 15 a _

, the thermal, seismic, and dead weight loads. The stresses in the fusion welds between cells were also shown to be less than

allowables with a factor of safety of 1.80.

4.3 Thermal Analysis Weld stresses due to heating of an isolated hot cell were computed. The analysis assumed that a single cell is heated to a relative temperature of 26'F higher than the temperature associated  !

with the adjacent cell. Since this occurs for the region 1 racks i (with water boxes), the maximum AT between a cell and the adjacent '

water box is 16* F. The stresses in the fusion weld for thermal alone were calculated to be 3.86 kai at the top of the rack. The Licensee stated that since the temperature distribution in the hot  !

cells is approximately linear, the thermal shear stress distri-bution will also be linear with zero at the bottom of the rack and the atximum at the top.

The total stress in the fusion weld including thermal, rack impact loads, seismic and dead weight is 29.1 kai with a factor of t

safety of 1.80. The calculation and methodology utilized to obtain the thermal stress and total stress was reviewed and found to be acceptable.

4.4 overall Evaluation of Seismic Analysis Results There were a number of concerns identified with the seismic model and analysis methodology. Concerns were raised that a single rack model used in the design basis analysis may undwrpredict j seismic forces and displacements that would occur in the real I multiple rack fuel pool environment. This concern was addressed l

by numerous multi-rack analyses which demonstrated that in general, L the pedestal forces from the design basis single rack analyses l (based on consolidated fuel) were higher than the forces from the multiple rack analyses (based on standard fuel).

These multi-rack analyses also addressed concerns related to

( the assumption of in phase motion of racks, the use of an external l spring to ground for the 0.8 coefficient of friction case, and the l SRSS combination of results from the three independent analyses  ;

corresponding to each direction. '

Another major concern which relates to the use of damping <

values greater than those tabulated in the I.p. Unit 3 FSAR, was addressed by performing an additional single rack analysis using 1% damping for a region 2 rack. The pedestal forces from the 1%

damping case (based on standard fuel) were slightly higher (by 2.2%) than the design basis case (based on consolidated fuel) .

The results of the damping comparison for the region 2 racks are l

judged to be applicable to the region 1 racks as well. Thus, the most critical stress which occurs in the pedestal external threads (see Table 4) would increase, thereby reducing the safety factor 16 l

L_ __ _._ _ _ _._._ __ _ __ _ _ - __ --_-- -

1 i

1 I

to 1.07. In reality though, this safety factor is higher because l the actual allowable shear stress for the pedestal threads is 12.87 1

. ksi rather than the 10.73 ksi utilized in the table. Thus, the '

concern of utilizing 4% damping has been adequately addressed by demonstrating that acceptable design margins exist if 1% damping 1 and standard fuel is uthlized.

Stresses resulting from impact forces generated by the additional analyses were evaluated and shown to be less than allowable values. Fuel to cell wall inpact forces were evaluated for the cell wall and for fuel adequacy and shown to be acceptable.

Based on the above discussion and the ample design margins ,

shown in Table 4, it has been demonstrated that the racks meet the current licensing requirements. Therefore, it is concluded that the fuel racks will maintain their structural integrity and the fuel assemblies will not sustain damage.

. 4.5 Fuel Handling Accident Analyses The Licensee performed structural analyses and evaluations for four postulated fuel handling accidents. The four types of fuel handling accidents considered are:

.1 Straight Fuel Drop Onto Top of Rack A 3026 poand consolidated fuel assembly dropping 20 inches on top of the rack was assumed. This input energy was used to calculate the plastic deformation in the cell walls based on actual cell box crush tests. Using this approach, the vertical plastic deformation was calculated at 5.65 inches. This limits the deformations at the very top away from the active fuel zone.

.2 Inclined Fuel Drop Onto Top of Rack Since the inclined drop would distribute its impact over more than one cell, the plastic deformation for this case would be less severe.

L

! .3 Straight Fuel Drop Through the Cell l

This analysis concluded that the dropped fuel assembly would have sufficient energy to break the welds holding the individual cell baseplate to the cell. Although, the accident would render one storage cell location unusable, the Licensee concluded that the physical configuration of the spent fuel storage cell will not be changed.

Therefore, the subcritical array of the rack would be maintained.

l 17 l

l

i. ,

s To address the adequacy of the pool liner, confirmatory calculations were performed for the drop of the fuel assembly through water alone and showed that the liner ,

i plate thickness would not be penetrated. The Ballistic Research Laboratory formula for steel target thickness was used. This confirms that the integrity of the pool ,

liner would be maintained if a fuel assembly is dropped on it.

To address the adequacy of the dropped fuel assembly, the Licensee indicated that Section 14.2.1 of the Indian Point 3 FSAR addresses fuel handling accidents, including analysis of dropping a fuel assembly vertically onto a rigid surface. This analysis indicated that the buckling load on the fuel rods was below the critical buckling load and stresses in the cladding were below yield. The-loads induced by dropping a fuel assembly vertically through an individual rack storage cell would be less severe than the case analyzed for the FSAR due to the kinetic energy absorbed by the cell bottom plate. The '

results of the previous FSAR fuel drop analysis, >

therefore, remain valid.

.4 2000 Pound Uplift Due to Fuel Jamming I A 2000 pound uplift force and a 2000 pound plus ono consolidated fuel assembly weight downward force were each applied to a single cell separately. The most critical stress was calculated to be 2368 psi (in the welds) which is well below the allowable value.

Based upon the above discussion, the use of consolidated fuel E weight (higher than standard fuel), and the review of the general l

' methodology; the structural adequacy of the racks and pool liner '

under the postulated fuel handling accidents has been adequately demonstrated.

4.6 Spent Fuel Pool Analysis The review of the analysis and design of the spent fuel pool structure was based on the audit conducted at the plant site on 3/9 to 3/10/89, on the information provided in References 1, 3a and 3b, and on the NYPA report " Structural Evaluation of the Spent Fuel

l. Storage Building for Storage of U.S. Tool & Die Maximum Density Racks," Rev. 1, 3/25/88. This report and analysis was performed by Ebasco for NYPA considering the new maximum density racks with i l 1,345 spent fuel assemblies.

4.6.1 Loads and Load Combinations l

The following design loads were considered in the reanalysis of the spent fuel pool. I 18

4 t

o Dead . loads' including the racks, fuel, pool structure (concrete, liner, and equipment permanently attached), i hydrostatic pressure (acting on walls and floor) and dead loads.from adjactnt floors and structural framings to the pool walls, o Live loads from the fuel cask and adjacent platforms, o Normal operating thermal load (200'F). 1 o Accident thermal load (212'F).

o seismic loads - OBE and SSE including hydrodynamic loads i of pool water acting on walls. '

The above loading conditions were combined into 13 load

, combinations which are presented in section 4.4.1.2 of Reference

1. An evaluation of the load magnitudes, load factors, and load combinations determined that the controlling load combinations

. requiring the nonlinear concrete analysis are: '

1.4D + 1.7L

1. 4 D + 1. 7L + 1. 9E 0.75 (1. 4 D + 1. 7 L + 1. 9 E + 1. 7 T.)

D + L + T. + E '

The acceptance criteria for the reinforced concrete pool structure required that stresses and strains meet the design limits t

described in ACI 349-80. The capacity of all sections were computed based on the Ultimate Strength Design. The acceptance limit for the liner, liner welds, and liner anchors were in i

accordance with Paragraph CC-3720 and CC-3730 of ACI-ASME Section

( III, Division 2, Subsection CC.

The loads, load combinations, and acceptance criteria described above were reviewed and found to be acceptable.

4.6.2 Spent Fuel Pool Structure Analysis l The pool was analyzed by the finite element method of analysis using the EBS/NASTRAN computer program.

The pool slab and walls were modelled using a 2-D quadrilateral plate element defined by four grid points. The thickness of the plate element was divided into layers representing concrete and reinforcing bars. The depth of concrete cracking and stresses in the concrete and reinforcing bars are automatically determined by computer iterations.

A computer plot of the finite element model is presented in Figure 15 which shows the overall view of the pool floor and pool walls. The soil under the mat was represented by linear springs at each nodal point in the three orthogonal directions, connecting the mat to the ground.

19 I

l

- + , - - - ,~e

A nonlinear cracking analysis was performed to solve the interaction problem between thermal cracking and mechanical loads in the reinforced concrete structure. The effects of the three earthquake components were combined by the absolute sum method.

This method is more conservative than the SRSS method. The analysis was performed for standard fuel.

The liner was evaluated for the temperature load, the strain induced load due to the deformation of the floor, and the maximum horizontal friction load due to seismic effects. The Ebasco program POSBUKF2628 was used for the liner buckling analysis while incorporating the effects of vertical seismic load and hydrostatic pressure. The liner anchors were evaluated for the unbalanced in-plane force due to the temperature and strain induced loads as well as the maximum horizontal friction force.

• Table 9 presents the results of the fuel pool nonlinear structural analysis. For each of the four governing load combi-nations described earlier, maximum shear forces and bending moments

, along with allowables and safety factors are tabulated for the four major pool structural components (mat, exterior wall, interior wall, and canal mat). For shear, the most critical location is the mat near the fuel transfer canal wall with a safety factor of 1.08.

For bending, the most critical location is the fuel transfer canal wall near the mat with a safety factor of 1.12.

The soil pressures under the mat from the maximum fuel rack loads were calculated from the pool analysis to be equal to a maximum soil bearing pressure of 17.9 ksf. This occurs at the north east corner of the pool slab and it is well below the allowable of 50 ksf.

The liner and liner anchors were checked for stress and strain limitations. Results indicated that the liner would not buckle and the maximum calculated strain of 0.0006375 in/in was below the 0.003 in/in allowable. The liner anchors were also shown to meet .'

strain induced loads as well as the seismic induced mechanical loads.

Based on the above analysis, the results provide assurance that the pool structure is capable of supporting the new maximum density racks filled with normal weight fuel.

5.0 CONCLUSION

S Many additional analyses were performed by the Licensee to successfully address the major concerns identified in this report.

All critical stresses in the racks have been shown to be less than the allowable values. It has also been shown that impact loads generated between the fuel assemblies and cell walls would not lead to damage. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the existing 20

i.

spent fuel pool has adequate capacity to accommodate the loads resulting from the maximum density racks and fuel assemblies.

L Based on the review and evaluation of the Licensing Report, additional analyses and information provided by the Licensee during the course of this review, and the above discussion, it is con-cluded that the proposed I.P. Unit 3 fuel racks and pool structure have sufficient structural capacity to withstand the effects of all required environmental and abnormal loadings discussed in this report.

l' i

l l

l l

21 i

_- - -.- - . ~ . - _ - - . - . -

SCP 2B *e9 09:11 P.2/2 i

6.O REFERENCES

1. New York Power Authority (NYTA) letter, " Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-286, Proposed Technical Specifications Regarding Spent Puol Pool Storage capacity Expansion," dated S/9/88. l

2. NRC letter to NYPA, " Request for Additional Information Related to the Indian Point 3 Spent Fuel Pool Expansion,"

J.D. Neighbors to J.C. Brons, dated 9/12/88.

,' 3a. NYPA letter to NRC, " Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-286, Spent Fuel Pool Expansion" (TAC 68233),

J.C. Brons to USNRC, dated 12/20/84.

3b. NYPA letter to NRC, " Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant, i Docket No. 50-286, Spent Fuel Pool Expansion," dated 9/15/49. 6

- 4. from B.K. Grimes,

- USNRC dated April letter14, to all power 1978, "0Treacto:- Postition licensees,iew for Rev and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications," as amended by the NRC letter dated Janustry 18, 1979. ,

5. US Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis. Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0800, Section 3.4.4, Revision 1, July, 1981.

6. R.G.. Dong, " Effective Mass and Damping of Submerged 5truc-turesa Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, UCRL-52342, April 1, 1978.

l 7. Stokey, W.J., Scavusso, R.J. and Radke, E.E., " Dynamic Fluid <

! Structure Coupling of Rectetngular Modules in Rectangular l Pools," ASME 8pecial Publication PVP-39, 1979.

( 8. R.J. Frits, "The Effects af Liquids on the Dynamic Notions of Immersed Solids," Joy of Engineering for Industry, Transactione of the Ash oruary, 1972, pp 167-172.

9. E. Rabinowicz, " Friction Coefficients for Water Lubricated Stainless Steels for a Spent Puel Rack Facility," a Report for Boston Edison Company, MIT, 1976.

22

1

- - , - . , . . , , _ , . . . , . _ , . . , , , , , - . , , , . _ , . . , _ _ , . . . . , _ . . _ ~ . _ _ . . . _ . . . - . . - _ - - . - . - - . , . - , . - - _

-. . . ~ . . .. - . - . _ . - - . . . . - . - .. . .. - . . - .

.7 I

t TABLE 1 l

MODULE DATA  !

i i

4 No. Cells No. Colls Total No. Est. Dry 5

No. of In N 8 In 8.W of Colle Mt. (1bs)

Module I.D.,

Modules 'Directies Direction Per Module Per Module 1 .

Region 1 l'

3 10 4 80 27,880 4721-2,-3,-4 o i Region 2 3 12 11 132 23,870 8721,-6,-9,-12 Begion 2 5 11 . 11 121 22,150 8721-7,-8 -10

-11,-13 Region 2 1 11* 108 104 19,000 8721-5 ,

• Cells missing la this module la area of new-fuel elevator. '

23

l i

} > ,

TABLE 2 i

SPENT FUEL RACK MODULE DATA  !

1 l

i RaSiaa 2 {

Number of Storage 240 .'

Locations 1105 e

Number of Rock 3 (8 10)

Arrays 3 (11 12) 3 (11 11) 1,(11 10)-(6) i Center-to. Center 10.74 Spackag (laches) 9.075 Cell 1.D. (! aches) 3.83 3.33

. Type of Fuel (W) 15 15 (W) 15:15 Optimised optielsed

.Back Assembly (8 10) 5 Dimensions (! aches) (11 12) l 84-7/16 r 106 1/16 *99-7/8 z 108-7/8

Reight 177 1/2

-All Racks. (llall) 99-7/8 a 99-7/8 (11:10)-(6) 99-7/8 a 90-3/4 l

j Dry Weights (1bs) (8 10)

J (11a12) 27,480 23,870 l.

(11:11) '

1 23.150 (11:10)-(6) 19,000 '

l l

b 24

h-1 1

. A B C D E F G I RUN NO. IP3EWCI IP3NSCI IP3ONSCIF IP30EWCIF IP3EWCIF IP3NSCIF IP3NS DB/ CONFIRM DB -

DB DB DB DB DB DB i RACK SIZE,# CELLS 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 l FRICTION, COEFF .8 .8 e

.2 .2 .2 .2 .8 MULT/ SINGLE, RACK S S o

DIRECTION EW NS NS S S S S S y

' EW EN NS NS .-e COMBINED IDADS? NO NO NO NO NO NO

WET / DRY NET WET WET WET N.O @

WET WET WET i

FIGURE REF. 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 g

y REGION 2 2 2 2 2

• 2 2 CONS / NORM FUEL CON CON CON CON CON CON NORM m TIME STEP, SEC .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 SYM/ UNSYM, FUEL . 0005 m e

SYM SYM SYM SYM SYN SYM SYM y $

M i

• YES YES YES YES YES YES YES o td l MULTI MASS SSE/OBE MODEL7 ~ SSESSE OBE OBE SSE SSE SSE E DAMPING, t 4 4 4 4f 4 4 W 4

! GAP - --- '

DISPIACEMENT,INCM .289 5

.276 .0114 00126 00348 00306 1928

MAX. PED FORCE Q

ON (2 PED) KIPS 289. 310. 238. 258. 295. 264.

191. :c l MAX. HORIZ.

FORCE, KIPS (2fTD) 89. 120. $

84.0 y M

in GAPS:

RACK TO RACK IMPACT --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

PACK TO RACK FLUID COUPLI!!G --- ---

e b

g , .y-.n m - - s.-- % .e e -% v ~y +__mc -_ __ _,_m . _ _ _ _ _w - --

___.m_-4

~

4 ~

,.

I l

i A B C D E F i G j RUN NO. IP3EWCI IP3NSCI IP3ONSCIF

-IP30EWCIF IP3EWCIF IP3NSCIF IP3NS

] RACK TO WALL i

IMPACT --- --- -- --- ---

y w

l RACK TO WALL, INCH 5.09/ 10.06/ t*

i FLUID COUP, INCH **

10.06/ 5.09/ 10.06/ 10.06/ v2 i

5.09 ** 5.09 ** ** te

) $ RACK TO FUEL -

i IMPACT GAP, INCH o 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 o.2 0, f f a RACK TO FUEL -

O FLUID COUP, INCH 0.15 0.15 0.15 1

0.15 , 0.15 0 JF A i

l l

l l

i * - Hydrodynamic mass based on Dong; conservative since proximity to wall not considered.-

• • - The gap is very large : an infinites coupling gap- was used at South wall near cask area.

u r H I J K L M N

, RUN NO. IP3EWI IP3NSIF IP3EWIF IP3NSIFO IPJEWIFO ~IP3EWRICI IP3NSRICI i

!- DB/ CONFIRM DB DB DB DB DB DB DB RACK SIZE,fCELLS 132 132 132 132 132 80 80 4

FRICTION,COEFF .8 .2 .2 .2 .2 .8 .8

) MULT/ SINGLE S S S S S S S i DIRECTION EW NS EW NS EW EN NS -

1 COMBINED IAADS? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO j NET / DRY WET WET WET WET WET WET WET i FIGURE REF. 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 $3

!i REGION 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 $

]

CONS / NORM FUEL TIME STEP,SEC NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM CONS CONS y

.0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 y SYM/ UNSYM, FUEL SYN SYN , SYN SYM SYN SYN - SYM "

w MULTI MASS MODEL? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 3-SSE/OBE SSE SSE SSE OBE . OBE SSE _ SSE o DAMPING, % 4 4- 4 4 4 4 4 GAP  %

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- U DISPIACEMENT, INCH .295 .303 .155 .1280 .117 .167 .138 --

MAX. PED TORCE ON (2 PED) KIPS 235. 163. 172. 162. 175. 206. 285.  !

MAX. HORIZ.

FORCE, KIPS 91. --- --- --- ---

52.8 105.5  ;

r GAPS: '

RACK TO RACK IMPACT --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

RACK TO RACK '

I FLUID COUPLING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- t v

.- , ~ . . _ . . . . . - - . . _ _ . - - - - -. _ _ _ _ ~ .

l H I J K L M N RUN NO. IP3EWI IP3NSIF IP3EWIF IP3NSIFO IP3EWIFO IP3EWRICI IP3NSRICI

RACK TO WALL -

IMPACT --- --- --- -- --- --- ---

'e RACK To WALL, INCH >

5.'09/ 10.06/ 5.09/ 10.06/ 5.09/ 5.09/ 10.06/ to FLUID COUP, INCH ** **

5.09 5.09 5.09 5.09 **

E j RACK TO FUEL "

y IMPACT GAP,INCN .21 .21 .21 .21 .21 .15 .15 3 i .

~

o l RACK TO FUEL , $

j FIDID COUP,ldCH * * * * -

• .15 .15 0

-

l l

l i

l l

, * - Hydrodynamic mass based on Dong: conservative since proximity to wall not considered.

j **- The gap is very large:: an infinite coupling gap was used at South wall near casP. area.

l l

i l

< O P Q R i S T-j RUN NO. IP3EWRICIF IP3NSRICIF IP3EWRIF. IP3NSR11 IP3EWR1IF IP3NSPIIF DB/ CONFIRM DB DB DB

' DB DB DB RACK SIZE,fCELLS 80 80 80 FRICTION, COEFF 80 80 80

.2 .2 .8 .8 MULT/ SINGLE, RACK .2 .8 l S S -S S DIRECTION ~ S S EW NS EW MS EW i COMBINED IDADS? NO NS NO NO NO HD l WET / DRY NO q3 WET WET WET WET WET

! FIGURE, REF WET 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 @

REGION 1 2.1 t*

1 1 1 1 "

CONS /MORM, FUEL 1 CONS CONS MORM NORM W i TIME STEP,SEC .0005 NORM NORM

.0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 l w" SYM/UMSYM, FUEL SYN SYM

.0005 -

SYM SYM SYN SYN MULTI MASS WODEL? YES YES YES YES O  !

! SSE/OBE YES YES Z SSE SSE ~

SSE .SSE i DAMPING, 4 SSE SSE $

4 4 4 4 CAP ---

4 4

• DISPIACEMENT,INCM .0878 .0642 .161

.0938 .1197 .1454 MAX. PED FORCE ON (2 PED) KIPS 218. 186. 197. 168. 148.

l MAX. MORIZ. ---

l FORCE, KIPS --- ---

t

51. 71. ---

121.8 '

l t l GAPS:

l RACK TO RACK .

IMPACT ---

RACV. TO RACK rtt:0 Cotet: :c --- --- --- --- --- ---

f I

a I

l I

l I

l i

( O P Q R S T RUN MO. IP3EWRICIF IP3NSRICIF IP3EWRIF IP3NSRII IP3EWRIIF IP3NSR1IF

RACK TO WALL j IMPACF - --- --- --- -- --- ---

9 j RACK TO WALL, INCH >

FIRID COUP, INCH to 5/4.51 5/4.10 5/4.51 2

5/4.10 5/4.51 5/4.10 5

RACK TO FUEL, INCH - w

$ IMPACT GAP, INCH .15 .15 .21 .21 21 i

.21 . 3o i RACK TO FUEL ~

z FINID COUP, INCH .15 .15 s

t J

e l

1

• - Hydrodynamic mass based on Dong: conservative since proximity to wall not considered.

• • - The gap is very large : an infinite coupling gap was used at South-wall near cask area.

4 l

i

I i

l .

-g 7 e 4 N- 4- -w -

=- - 6- 7 y  % e,e-' 2+N T-M eW"-- @ -tM^ e TT-ee e--M

U V W X Y Z 4 RUN NO. IP3EWR11FO IP3NSRIIFO IP3NSIH IP3NSFE IP3NSIHF IP3NSE i

DB DB DB DB DB DB DB/ CONFIRM RACK SIZE,8 CELLS 80 80 132 132 132 132 FRICTION,COEFF .2 .2 .8 .2 .2 .8 i MULT/ SINGLE, RACK S S S S S .S DIRECTION EW NS MS MS NS MS NO NO NO NO NO I

COMBINED EDADS? NO WET WET WET WET WET WET 3 WET / DRY FIGURE, REF 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 @

REGION 1 1 2 2 2 2 e M

CONS /NORN, FUEL NOftN NORM NORN EMPTY - NORM EMPTY

.0005 .0005 W i w TIME STEP,SEC .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 i # SYM/UNSYN, FUEL SYN SYM . UNSYN SYM UNSYN SYN -

i MULTI MASS NODEL? YES YES YES YES YES YES O

~

SSE Z SSE/OBE OBE OBE SSE . SSE SSE DANPING, 4 4 4 4 4 - 4 4 $

. GAP --- ---

DISPIACEMENT,INCN .0957 .1060 .1190 .82 .076 .052

MAX. PED FORCE ON (2 PED), KIPS 130. 125. 161. 19. 107. 83.

l MAX. HORIZ.

FORCE, KIPS --- ---

52. --- --- 23 l

GAPS:

l

'l RACK TO RACK --- ---

IMPACT --- --- --- ---

3 RACF TO RACK .

+

FLU

• D CCUPLING --- --- --- ---

)

l t

l

,. --. -. , , = , - .:+. ,,w.. > , - , . , , ,

x _ .., _. ..,,.a . -m

,.-- t i

i i

4 U V W x y z I

RUN NO. IP3EWR1IFO IP3NSR11FO IP3NSIM IP3NSFE IP3NSIHF IP3NSE

! RACK TO WALL

! IMPACT --- --- --- --- --- ---

J

.-3 1

RACK TO WALL, INCH >

FLUID COUP, INCH 5/4.51 5/4.10 10.06/** 10.06/** 10.06/** $

10.06/** t's i

RACK TO FUEL, INCH - (d g IMPACT GAP, INCH .21 .21 .21 . 21 .21 .21 -

' n

RACK TO FUEL ' o

~ z l FIRID COUP, INCH * * * *

• s

• - Hydrodynamic mass based on Dong conservative since proximity to wall not considered.

• • - The gap is very large;; an infinite coupling gap was used at South wall near cask area.

r - ,. e r we er , ,e e, sa - .a , .-m,--, n -,-w.

i l

i 1

I 4

! x 1

Begiosa 1 N

f moorreo Futa-s4% *M4 Roupless 2 6 9EGOLAnL Guelyly5 OAme'eaG ~

2 Actamal Alleerable Safety Acteet A31amable Safety inw=tice Coed. Type (KSI) (RSI) Factor (E51)

(ESI) Facter M t-s Henieten Cell to Cell m m

rtamiest meld Stroes

em Shear 10.e 21.es 2.30 11.36 21.co 1.3s y l Based 13.6 18.00 1.32 13.II 18.00 1.37 M i m

SSE Stener 13.3 29.e6 2.19 16.99 c

29.06 E.se t*

Besed 18.8 36.00 2.se 17.43 36.Se' 2.07 M e

' O >

d cell Setteel Flate to E

, Boz Wall Wald Stress: OSE Shear 13.0 21.90 1.61 13.26 23.se 1.58 y I'8 o a l SSE Sheer 16.5 29.06 1.76 18.51 29.06

• i*

1.57

' m 9

Top Podestal Plate to c

cell matteus F1 Weld

ens sanear 12.7 21.co 1.65 4.97 21.e8 S.15 Q

c j SSE Shear 19.4 29.96 1.52 6.13 29.06 4.74 i  %

e Ptseestal Thread Streme lesterstal: Om W '6.43 S.58 1.33 5.43 8.58 1.58 l SSE Sheer 3.15 10.73 1.31 7.17 10.73  %

g 1.49 m

Earternmel: OW shear 7.66 8.58 1.32 6.41 s.5e 1.34 lm SSE Shear 9.71 10.73 1.10 8.46 le.73 1.27 l

. . - __. . -. _ . , _ _ _ . . _ __ m

L TABLE 5 l~ MULTI-RACK ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- REGION 1 (KIPS AND INCHES) 11 unt2212 L 1/4" OAP L 12CEL )

1

[ u = .s  ;

I ceMPoNigT 1/2 WLL PULL EMPTY  !

REX 1 RCX 2 EEEa AXIAL FORCE ON FOOT, XIPS 54.0 72.2 22.7 SitEAtt FORCE ON POOT, KZPs 19.5 12.8 11.2 1

RACX TO RACK IMPACT,LBs/ LEVEL TOP 0 SA20 5A20 MIDDLE 0 4,102 3A02 BOTTOM 0 0 0

. RACX TO WALL IMPACT, LB5 0 =

0 D!$PIACEMENT, INCH TCP- 0.16 0.13 0.26 BOTTOM 0.13 0.11 0.18 L 11 D&BEula .

1/4" GAP AA SIJefs u = 0.2 .

l 1/2 WLL FULL EMPTY COMPONENT R&GE 1 RGE 1 B&GE 2 AXIAL PORCE ON FOOT, RTP5 42.8 62.5 16.8 SHEAR FOU.CE ON FOOT, XIPS 3.3 11.9 3.0 RACK TO RACK IMPACT,LBS/ LEVEL TOP 1714 MIDDLE 1461 BOTTOM 4781 RACK To WALI, IMPACT, LBS --- ---

DISPLACEMENT, INCH TCP .30 .16 .19 BOTTOM .19 .14 .19 34

^

t? .

3 TABLE 6 MULTI-RACK-ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- REGION 2 (KIPS AND INCHES)

AA ShMI.Ufa 1/4" GAP 122.*. SELL  !

u en .8 1/2 FULL FULL ENPTY COMP 0NEMT ggg n Egg g ggg g .

4 AXIAL PORCE ON POOT, K!PS 45.0 100.5 44.1

$ HEAR.PORCE ON FOOT, KIPS 34.2 31.5 35.3 RACM Tc RACK IMPACT, LB8 0 0 0 RACK To MALL INPACT, LBS 0 0 0 .

DISPIACEMENT, INCM, TOP .38 .25 .40 norr0M .22 .21 .31 '

&& DAMPING 1/4" GAP 1 12L. SELL u = .2 1/2 FULL PULL EMPTY COMPONENT Rgg M Rgg 1 BME &

AXIAL PORCE ON POOT, RIPS 52 5 87.5 13.5 SHEAR FORCS ON POOT, KIPS 10.1 17.2 3.4 MACK To RACK IMPACT, Lhs 0 -

0

(: RACK TO MALL IMPACT, LSs 0 -

0 DISPIACEMENT, INCH, TCP 0.40 0.53 0.44 BOTTOM 0.40 0.82 0.44 i

35 l

f j

TABLE 7 l

MULTI-RACK BOUNDING A!1ALYSI,S

SUMMARY

(KIPS AND INCHES)

DAMPINS - 24  !

EVENT = SSE GAP,IN - 1/32 4 u .6 111-CELL 1/3 FULL PULL EMPTY

,- COMEDD4T BM3 11 EME A BMXA l

Ax!AL FORCE ON POOT, RIPS 113.4 its 51.3 SilEAR FORCE ON FOOT, NZPS 36.7 37.3 41.0

. RACK TO RACK IMPACT, LDS

. TOP 3,934 139 NIDDLE 4,831 ---

SOTTON 10,660 $,350 RACK TO WALL IMPACT, LDS --- ---

i DCTTON DISPLACEMENT, INCM .35 .34 .56 DAMPING - 2%

EVENT - SSE -

GAP,IN - 1/32 i u - 0.3 133-CELL l 1/2 FULL FULL EMPTY l COMEal2NT BEE 11 BMX A BMXA .

Ax!AL PORCE ON PooT, RIPS 53.4 83.7 16.4 SHEAR FORCE ON FOOT, R2PS 9.5 16.7 2.9 RACK TO RACK IMPACT, LB3 TOP 9,922 9,543

• MIDDLR 17,000 16,000 '

BOTTON 11,990 11,270 RACK To WALL 1MPACT, LBS --- ---

DOTTON DISPLACEMENT, INCH .38 .41 1 34 -

• Inadvertiently used 17,550 lb. in telephone discussion 8/1/89 1

36

b,, i l

l I

TABLE 8 j COMPARISON OF RESULTS ,

l I

(Region 2, SSE case, E-W & Vertical + D.W,

.8 and .2 Friction Coefficient) i i

SINGLE RACK

• MJLTI-RACK **

• RESPONSE DESIGN BASIS MULTI-RACK ** IOUNDING CASE Consol. h AXIAL FORCE 168 125 101 125 ON FOOT-(KIPS)

. SHEAR FORCE 45 46 35 41 ON FOOT (KIPS)

RACK TO RACK N.A. N.A. 0 39 IMPACTS (KIPS)

HORIZONTAL DISP. .0035 .155 .44 (Empty Rack) 1.34 (Empty Rack)

.AT BASE (INCH) .52 (Full Rack) .41 (Full Rack) ,

i I

e

• See Section 4.1 for description (44 damping, rack to rack fluid coupling'and impact' gap - not applicable).

• • See Section 4.2.2 for description (4% ' damping,1" fluid coupling gap, %" impact gap).

• • • See Section 4.2.3 for description (2% damping, la fluid coupling gap, 1/32" impact gap).

37

l

~

c

. . ~_

__

i e

4 l .,.

i 9

x selected ~

teesleen Average Sheer Itamisen goedlag IIsomet 0 i j Load (Elpe/Ia Nieth) (Ie-Elpe/Ie Width) y Cambinaties Imcatlam actual 111eueble Safety Factar Actaal Allemobig Safety Factar___..... "

m e

l BInt 0.96 3.48 3.03 59 135 2.29 y i

1.4D + 1.7L Est len11 1.58 6.75 4.27 131 213 1.63 cm

! Ist IInt! 1.97 5.25 2.66 73 les 2.e3

• i Camel IIst 2.19 0.72 3.90 , @

t "

. C t<

IInt ,

1.79 3.68 2.16 95 135 1.42 $e j , 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9E Eat Wall 3.95 6.75 2.29 166 303 1.83 co 3.02 5.25 o @

j Ist teoll Caeol DIst 3.60 0.72 1.74 82 148 1.88 M y 2.42 o o ,,o .

O

. t*

30st 2.80 3.68 1.38 352 421 1.20 m 8.75 (1.49 + 1.7L + But IRn11 4.07 6.75 1.39- 368 513 1.39 $

1.95 e 1.7 To) Ist teoll 7.55 e.24 1.09 911 1917 1.12 8 Camel test 6.71 8.72 1.38 9

~

C N

Iant 3.44 3.68 1.as 295 430 1.46 D e L

• To + E' Est les11 4.35 6.75 1.55 255 553 2.17 g Ist IIsil 7.34 8.24 1.12 466 832 1.79 .<

Caeol IInt 7.44 8.72 1.10 0 m

i I

i e

-h-m.c .uww 3- ,an-._ s ,.- __.. . _ _ mm ,m. _m- - - - - __-~___m , g , .,, ypq  % _

, _,%#. 4 g,y-,qp _ ,,m

m 2

FIGURE 1 l j POOL LAYOUT l 1

f i

I REGION 1 C 2 REG 20N 2  ;

• $W4 .

3 r- - .

, t

-- m. a0. . . . ,. . .s v ,; = --- l g*. a m 9mfCm1C' i

(Sale)  :,u10)

' 104 - -- --  ;

t' . 11x10 6) '

- n

s. 6 j L , - ----. --. t na u a r, +

1j

.f. = k.~[! ,

-, l e, - ""

132 121'" ,

(11x12) (11 111 g

. (J1121' 11)~~C ',

{

. . 4.-

. t

, j 4

132 121 <

i (11 12) -

(11 11) 121, (11x11) ---<

., e  :

J M'.>.

! .eu gl.1 C I 132 121 l """

I (11:t1 F l (11 mill' """~ CApt' ,AT.CA ,

I I - -

1 Iv' '

l 4a $ E' =4i 50 '

l Rit?!0N 1 STORAGE = 240 REGION 2 STORAGE TOTAL ==1,J46 lLO4 39 t

1.

TIGURE 2 REGIO 14 3 S"0 RACE CELL GEOMETRJ

_ 10.74* PITCH

~

}, 'f .

• "-

-, n  !

8.426' 500ARE

.e 3 FUEL AS$DtBLY i

~

_ 9.a r* Set'ARE-!N'stDr _ 1.44' STORACE CELL 20 I i

! i l .085* ?MicT JP \ -

Sox at.t.s  !

i i

motsa wrex x 7.50 wier x 1 n'imcd/ I i 40AAL PC180N (.020 gm/cas' S-10 Min) 8 I I

t

, 8 l L.. .. ..

g gg ......_ .._..... _- ....._ _. _ _ _ _-7' w g  !

4

[

f l

c t

k 40 i

F F8GURt 3 arc 2cu 1 nex cetts tttv nion v2tw

• I TYy

\, ,N N

%- s S 70RMC CClL saou -

0 A9 lH . ~67 t/ /4 t/ATCR BCX

) ,cl G R O U P /, 5 7t! M

" sv' . s s t 6

4 >e

\

b, >' .

't

>, )

,4 N

/

i, ,,

t ==

/ s.s ss b ., ,,

N b e ,8 *t N. p I N N

k,n. .y . .,

>q s.,

. ,x ,N s e

N,N/, e 41

i I

FIGURE 4 i REGION 2 STORAGE CELL GEOMETRY l

I t

i 9.075* PITCH _

i i

l

\

l 1

8.426" SQUAAE '

r _.

e i FUEL ASSDSLY

' "a I

• l l l .  :

8.t 33" SQUARE INSIDE '

stenAct ctLL '

t I i

.085" TH2 Box WALL i

1 e

, . ossa w ww w e.ona winz v i u = te '

I BORAL Poison (.020 gn/an2 3-10 Min)  !

4

% me .. .. p k

I J g

-7  % ..

i I I

F 42 l t l

l 1

TIGURE 5 nrGION 2 - RACK CELLS EL=YATI n vIrN L - A n.\ \

i k @n k

IN ecent kY N, '

4 h, /

~ , /

t s o~. '

0 /

9 f N

\ a IN i

/

1 1

. ]

t., .' $ . '

I k

N {

i

=> s i). 1 s [ I/g S

'N i <

b

F

{

l? 1 a e, s i s '

s i

%Vi '/ ., >

, W \

5 U

b

, P 8 . ,

t ,

,/ a

~\. 4 s  !

W $, ,

+ .

4) , . ,

ep ,

y g b ' i A s k

g N x.x,v .

y. ,.

s > j, > 1 p,- -

7

- S /,& 1 N.g %

N.

[b ,

Nt v/3 n l

\ 43 rs i

l l

• l l

t

\

F2 CURE 6  !

l RACK PEDESTALS l I

i,

(

i f

%, e f NN a

i N  !

N l N ,.  :

I i

e P

e .

t 1  !

l l

l 80 01 0 ono o,io coo on o o 0 0 i

6 h w W a

e dna me.a. esslml w s

\ l i f . ,

i i s

R u ,N (t.

O D

t

.el*Me..E4 4.-loes - .N4p-,.88A+--4^J -A FIGURE 7 SEISMIC ANALYSIS MODEL i

e g 1: v 5

A -

[..,15 l < 9 /2aT to

" ' S

. 6 N

.., E 4' 2.  :

. $

• g ,e > - GP 3

v e ',

1. - OA _

l, 1 '

L riit A.  !

"1 " A0>-vc . 6P W. GA

-

';;[ 1 u.* ' i _

i i u.* 1 g ,*,we l

' ~'

1 A, b  !!g}

5

" A 0>-vr ,.

, GP W- GA T E E . _

v

- 0 $ -  !

4:-_  : _  ;

( is u y  :

mw r r it  ;

usu ww. eis no mess u m n.wy w . m ar n few nee Dry Wo.gm g g% (VartssalCamponenu +

nogensen seetiemem [,]. was mese(weit cowniine  ;

N MM

~

45 i

. . - - - . - - . , - . . . _ - . . , . ...-. ..- _ ,. -._-.- ...-.-...-- ~.._. .- - _ - .--_ _ ..- __,....._.. -. _ _. ., ...~. . .

, 4 am -e-m-+SJD.Ae-*@4 e. daw %A -na -A.a.a--amJMAw.-.44m, pe. i--.=W64-  %^44 esA4,mEe-- d.eweph m ehnah-.6--,er 44e *.-we e ..he...-s.e4 ems 6 3

1 f

FIGURE 8 l N-S SSE TIME HISTORY -

l i

l i

T i

N I

@ l N c  !

. g - -

i

. s T .

i G i

' T  !

~  :

M i I

k N 4

~

~ s  !

O 4L <

@ g

= "

. s. ,

s  :

, M

= @ '

W V>

d -

Y I

. _ e^ g  :

v s

- ,t p

)

.2 i

n I =

(D v _ N g g -

~

l U J " ~

h E e E ".

gl5

• dI m'  ? $ '

U C U >

4 46

• i s .. .- - - - .-, , ,-. -. --, . - - . . . . - - - , - ---,,w--+------,,n w,- .-n., -,-.-.--n--.--,--,e n-,.---

i,s FIGURE 9

\ 1i

' ~

N-S SSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON e ^

N"

- P N -

m N M e -

N g W _-

s e 1 -

u

• ,~ xi 1 & _ R =

1s cv 5

\' C m

- 10 .

C 0

- 2 *

- I e j -

m~y H v .

T

=

- 3

.2 g w n g 3 - m u m

~

6 __ S

'N l I i  !

l e 4

e m e n a _ w s e e -

J.

v U

e e s a w

l 4 Z 47

. . _ . .. ..__. ._ _ _~ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ .._ _ ..__ _ _ - - _.- -_ _ - . ... - .- -

4  :

1

)

I

, l

.TIGURE 10 E-W SSE TIME HISTORY i l

1 I

i i

J r

,e  ;

t b i m -

l

)

s i e ,

s e ,

. R s

i

, e  ;

e l

1 m i f

4 N

I i

i A; '

e  !

,r  ;

s i r ,

H ,

- e j W

w i

l .

~

• 3 l v  ;;.  !

_ ,3 6  ;

s 1._

n e z i

• N

.I_

i g

- 1 l "j j j

• u -

• 3

t. &. &. B. e S. a 5 2

e. y 1* * * *

?

?  ?  ?  ? - ,

8 E

< w 48  ;

i

,  :!:-;l ;i,,1L , t -l ! ;lj! t l i:

woc 5 H MS0 mmM 0Moew g n9s.v>wHmo=

,._ 9 0: ) -

2 o .

n .

3: i p

4 I

m a -

D .

7  % _

_. 8 1

/ .

8 5 , _

. 2 I 3 1 _

/ .

4 c. 3

- 8 i -

t H .

e n 0 h g I 3 i o -

t i _

n F -

y (

S n 3 -

5 2 #

I t

N

- 8 i

P n

o I 2 n

i a -

) d n

I 5z 1 H

(

I y 6 -

c

' I 0e 1

n u 5 4 -

q e e l 1

r E F .

) e m -

G 5 u -

( i r

t n e .

o . -

I

. p .

t _ _.

_ S .

a7 6 t

5 4 O 3

2. i E r i e0 0 0 0

. e S l 0 0 0 S -

e c U c

A E- .

n .,,.: ,t!:; , ; !li ,

TIGURE 12 REGION 1 - 80 CELL RACFS USED FOR MULTI-RACK MCDEL N=

' FLUID 5" 1.5 1.5 5*

Gio MD.1 5" . t$ .?5  : .5 i W

->  ;  :  :  : _

v / ////////, ////////> ///////// ////////_ / y a .

[ -'

Jg i i 1

-  : . /

/ .--

_. /

u' .. - ,/

U

///////// -

I l

i

, 1 i ,

,  ;

1 l h I  !

f l

l i

~

mr -n- .. . , ,. , c , c,, y i

l

• ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

l

t 1/2 FULL fvLL g

1. 8 3 ,

50 4 l

i

[

I I

I l

i TIGURE 13 t 1

i REGION 2 - 132 CELL RACKS USED TOR MULTI-RACK MODEL i 1

l 1

N =

l W = r --

JL b ,. s e . . .

2 i

. - . F n  ! I

~

l i

i 2  ! I r

• ^ i'

.i I [

Im ml I

u o *"I i 1 i j MUID MDt j i .,, J i ,

- '4.51 1.5 l ii - .---

I i

<-- RACK 5 OcTt j n1110 14DI -

c;& Gtp U _

l 1.0 .25 9

( '

i t

i l RACK 8 RLL I <--., j t

i '

1.0' .25 n d '

l .

MCK 11 1/2 MLL ,

I n .

4.51 5.00 il i C

y h

i 51

A 3O5 %

xgdh9 xoN -

w% -

7

= _~ e

? Y 6T m

l s n Qx ;?(: g

~

T P _

s5 B 3 da1S*s g

@M E

. A .

S' m

\ :9 A

\ s.'

g1 "

gv a M'

y s

g- _

w

. e% w w

GA e

w p w

~

[ g p

y D  :

D .

C ,R w m

D w

e D LA L f

u s a n E qB pl 7 1

W@ LD E UNU u

6 m9 l -

f i

t :s FAF T

u n

S' S m

/ / n

• 1 z

. 9-aE  :.:- g _

8 @ [G 8 @ S Qe y

g o

l d -

M" w

a" .

y sM N

- e y

= LL'D T

N t UR AL E

s F DE e M 4 3'9l v

2 N. tee F NU 4 C

L C

P

- i @m 8 3 i

t E 8

$D L AF A u -

A T

• G x N HS w

ea e

)

1 -

8@91 Q9 IG (0 g@n lIg v~~

E

<

6

TIGURE 15 TUEL POOL - FINITE ELEMENT MODEL N

. al .

E r

/

/</  %

N N

/  %

e N -

% t

/ d

'- N -

N

< ,7%,s N

N

)' y9:>N.

, ... ' i N -

'*ai > '

N

- >< s

/

-=.

N -

d =td,ii;=%::::[ .

/

) "

N ,

4  %,,,, ,, l

/ '

2<::: :

< .- ~

/ -

4

,,,-  :=$ , / l

(

f

~ - ,.

n- ._ ,

y - --

i g /  ;>=,NU> ' -

y

[

s.a s e,s.3. d . 4 lillf',11!'i.t!.!.!!!..

........ . ..... [(# .". w ar s (T YPita b )

vid VM , v s, a wgic.i pi...ti-1 1

53

_ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ ,