ML20076C419

Suppl a to Holtec Rept HI-89399 Re Mod to Util Application for Storage Capacity Expansion of Spent Fuel Pool to Incorporate Dimensional Changes in Module Layout

ML20076C419
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	07/12/1991
From:	HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL
To:
Shared Package
ML20076C416	List: JPN-91-033, Suppl to 900531 Application for Amend to License DPR-59, Consisting of Suppl a to Holtec Rept HI-89399 Re Expansion of Storage Capacity of Spent Fuel Pool.Analysis Indicates That No rack-to-rack Impacts Would Occur W/Reduced Spacing ML20076C419
References
HI-89399-SA, NUDOCS 9107220030
Download: ML20076C419 (16)

Text

-

ATTACHMENT I TO JPN 91 XXX SUPPLEMENT A HOLTEC REPORT Hi 89399 (JPTS-89-035)

New York Power Authority JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Docket No. 50-333 91072200~O 910712 PDR ADOCK 05000333 P

FDR

i SUPPLEMENT A HOLTEC REPORT HI 89399 1.0 PURPOSE This modification to NYPA's application for storage capacity expansion of the J.A.

FitzPatrick pool is required to incorporate the dimensional changes in the module layout submitted with the original licensing application.

2.0 BACKGROUND

A dimensional survey of the pool indicated that the rack-to-wall gap at certain lccatians, and the gap between the existing racks and the new rack array, are slightly reduced.

Figure 2.1 in the original licensing application is herein modified to reflect the new dimensions and is relabelled as Figure 1.

A review of NYPNs licensing submittal document indicated that thermal / hydraulic (Section 5) and structural considerations (Section

6) required reassessment and re-evaluation. This submittal documents results of the reanalysis, and provides results in conformance with the a."ual spent fuel pool dimensions and rack spacing.

3.0 THERMAL-HYDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Introduction Section 5 of the licensing report documents the results of the thermal-hydraulic analyses.

The thermal-hydraulic safety assessment presented in Section 5 can be sub-divided into two broad areas, namely (i) bulk pool water temperature evaluation and (ii) local pool water and fuel cladding temperature evaluation.

S-1

L 3.2 Bulk Pool Water TemperatuLC The bulk pool water temperature profile is a function of the gross heat generation and removal rates, and is there. fore unaffected by the slight dimensional changes in the relative positioning of the rack modules.

3.3 Local Pool Water and Fuel Cladding Temperature The local pool water temperature it affected by the module-to wall gep. To determine the effect of the dimensional change, the local water and fuel cladding temperatures were re-evaluated using computer code THERPOOL following the methodology described in Section 5 of the Licensing Report.

3.4 Results and Conclusions Tables 1 and 2 provide a comparison of the previous values (extracted from Section 5 of the Licensing Report) and the recalculated values. It is noted that, while the local water and peak fuel cladding temperatures have increased, the maximum values are well within the limits and preclude localized nucleate boiling or a state of overstress in the fuel cladding.

l l

S-2

\\

4 Table 1 Maximum Local Water and Fuel Cladding Temperature (*F)

MAXIMUM LOCAL WATER TEMPERATURE CLADDING TEMPERATURE Previous Previous Gap Gap Configuration Revised Configuration Revised M

(Table 5.7.31 Configuration (Table Sal)

Configuration Normal discharge 210.9 218.6 246.5 250.6 Full core offload 192.8 199.7 223.3 227.1 Table 2 Maximum Local Water and Fuel Cladding Temperature with 50%. Assumed Blockage Condition (*F)

MAXIMUM LOCAL WATER TEMPERATURE CLADDING TEMPERATURE Previous Previous Gap Gap Configuration Revised Configuration Revised h

(Table 5.7.31 Configuration fTable 5.7.31 Conficuration Normal discharge 226.0 235.7 257.5 263.1 Fu11' core offload 205.9 215.9 232.9 238.9 S-3

(

l

4.0 SEISMIC / STRUCTURAL C.DNSIDERATIONS 4.1 Introduction The reduction in the reference gap between the existing racks and the new racks (scheduled to be installed along the cast wall) requires a re evaluation of the potential for impact between the new and old racks during an SSE (Safe Shutdown Earthquake) event.

To make this evaluation, rack modules proximate to the new modules were analyzed using the computer code DYNARAC)C The modeling procedure and analysis methodology for analyzing new fuel racks is described in detail in Section 6 of the licensing report, and is therefore not repeated here. For the existing high density racks, the simulations are limited to a study of bounding notions. Therefore, it is only necessary to compute the overall mass and inertial properties of the racks. For the purpose of estimating maximum rack movement, the important stiffness that should be modeled is the vertical stiffness of the pedestals, including the effects of local rack cellular structure. The drawings of the existing racks are utilized to obtain the appropriate stiffness; Section 2.2 of the Licensing Report also describes the existing racks. Referring to Figure 2, the existing racks are almost square. The 11x10 modules have the maximum inertial mass and will therefore most likely define the limiting case for kinematic evaluation; however, some runs evaluating the existing 8x10 have been added. In order to establish an upper bound on the module displacement, various conditions of fuel loading, full as well as partly full, were studied. Similarly, additional dynamic analyses on limiting new module geometries were also performed with the objective to establishing their maximum displacements. For this purpose, the module with the maximum aspect ratio (6x14 module), and the one with maximum inertia (12x11 module) were selected. The coefficient of friction between the rack pedestal and poolliner -

interface was also set at its extremal values (0.2 and 0.8) to bracket the effect of variation in the friction coefficient. In all, the following cases were analyzed. Table 3 lists all of the single rack analyses performed.

i l

{

S-4

Table 3 RUN LD2 B.AG COF.

Ilh\\DINW 3

)

220 Existing 10x11 Cof. =.8 full fuel load 275 Existing 10x11 Cof =.8 1/2 load positive x-half 227 Exining 10x11 Cof.

.8 1/2 diagonal load (positive r, y quadrant)

N) 325 Existing 10x11 Cof. =.2 6 cells loaded BH1 New 11x12 Cof. =.8 1/2 load positive x BH2 Same as BH1 Cof. =.2 i

BH3 New 11x12 Cof. =.8 1/2 diagonal load (positive x,y qu9drcrits)

BH4 Same as BH3 Cof. =.2 CH1 New 6x14 Cof. =.8 1/2 load in posit ve x CH2 Same as CHI Cof. =.2 g

CH3 New 6 x 14 Cof. =.8 1/2 load in positive y CH4 Sarne as CH3 Cof.

.2 CH5 New 6x14 Cof. =.8 1/2 load diagonally located (positive x,y quadrants) y CH6 Same as CH5 Cof. =.2 C22 New 6x14 Cof. =.8 full (same as CO2 in Licensing report except takes account of new gap dimensions).

C23 New 6x14 Cof. =.8 full (heavier fuel) (sarre as C01 in Licensing report, er ept with new gaps.

2 500 Existing 8x10 Cof. =.8 full fuel loaa 501 Existing 8x10 Cof. =.8 6 cells loaded All runs carried out for the SSE seismic event.

i l

S-5 4

l 1

The coordinate system notation used in the foregoing is illustrated in Figure 3.

Cof.

indicates the " coefficient of friction" between the rack pedestal / liner interface.

- 4.2 Result 3 of Simulations Tables 4 and 5 summarize the additional simulations carried out and are continuations of Tables 6.5 and 6.6 of the licensing report, respectively. The following additional remarks are appropriate.

1.

For the existing racks, rack-to-rack hydrodynamics was neglected so as to maximize rack movements, and stress factors were not computed since the focus of this analysis is to determine the potential for rack to-rack impact with the new racks.

r 2.

Rack-to-rack hydrodynamics was included in the analyses for the different load cases involving the new racks, and the stress factors were computed and reported.

This is consistent with original analyses in the licensing document for the new racks.

We see from the tables that predicted displacements from all runs indicate that no rack.

to-rack impacts will occur even with reduced spacing. The stress factors for the additional new rae:k simulations are all less than 1.0, the OBE timit. All analyses were performed for l

the SSE event, since the kinematic displacements for SSE will be a bound for those for OBE.

i l

l l

l l

l l'

g l

l l

l S-6 i

5.0 CONCLUSION

S The results of the analyses presented in the foregoing demoastrate that criteria of safety applicable to spent fuel storage racks, as enunciated :n the USNRC OT Position Paper and NUREG-0800, continue to be satisfied by the maximum density racks.

The analysis of critical racks using the changed gap geometry shows that no impacts will occur between existing and new racks.

The small increase in bulk pool temperature does not affect pool cooling.

All conclusions presented in NYPA's safety evaluation remain valid.

S-7 w

Table 4

~

'FTRESS FACTORS -(continuation of Table 6.5 ofthe Licensing Report)

RUN E

.E E

Es Er i

2 3

CH1

.011

. 006

.050

.040

.078

.090

.007

.091

.013

.089

.087

.141

.152

.013 CH2

.011

.006

.051

.039

.07a

.090

.007

.103

.012

.101

.086

.183

.198

.015 t

CH3

.011

.006

.352

.039

.061

.-070

.007

.089

.014

.139

.091

.202

.223

. 0' ;

z 1

CH4

.011

.006

.052

.039

.061

.070

.007

.089

.013

.164

.096

.224

.249

.024 CH5

.011

.006

.051

.043

.078

.090

.007

.099

.014

.089

.101

.150

.161

.013 CH6

.011

.005

.051

.042

.078

.091

.007 l

l

.100

.011

.130

.080

.200

.219

.019 1

i l

l-l For each run, upper values are for baseplate gross section; lower values are for pedestal upper section (including gussets).

a.

Table 4 (continued)

STRESS FACTORS B

E.

RUN Es E

E E

E3 6

7 2

3 4

220 NOT APPLICABLE 225 NOT APPLICABLE 227 NOT APPLICABLE 325 NOT APPLICABLE 500 NOT APPLICABLE 501 NOT APPLICABLE f

BH1

.012

.008

.044

.033

.046

.053

.008 l

.124

.023

.186

.162

.269

.299

.026 l

BH2

.012

.007

.047

.034

.057

.065

.006

.133

.018

.139

.132

.225

.246

.020 BH3

.012

.008 033

.033

.043

.049 00

.127

.026

.155

.182

.259

.285

.022 BH4

.012 007

.033

.033

.045

.052

.006

.128

.016

.122

.115

.220

.240

.018

.. - ~ -

Table 4 (continued)

STRI:SS FACTORS EUH B

B B

E E

E E

3 2

5 4

3 6

7 c22

.016 023

.078

.041

. css

.102

.012

~~

l

.122

.029

.110

.200

.267

.297

.016 C22

.024

.021

.113

.060

.131

.153

.019

.197

.044

.170

.300

.414

.458

.025 For each run, upper values are for baseplate gross section; lower values are for pedestal upper section (including gussets).

Table 5 RACK DISPLACEMENTS AND SUPPORT LOADS (continuation of Tabte 6.6 of the Licensing Report)

Maxinus Maxinsa Vertitst Vertical Maxleun Maxinus Load on lab Load on Stab shear Load Displacements (4 pedestals)

(single pedestat)

(single pedestat)

(in.)

L4[1 semarks uh1 nh1 upJ B

12 1 CH1 6x14

.4009x10 1.982x10' 1959

.1211

.0271 5

1/2 x, cof. =.6

.0007

.0004 CH2 6x14 4011x10 2.250x10' 2273

.1125

.0281 5

1/2 x, cot. =.2

.0009

.0005 CH3 6x14

.4011x10 1.944x10' 3025

.1279

.0339 5

~ 1/2 y, cof. =.8

.0008

.0006 CH4 1/2 y, co!. =.2

.4010x10 1.942x10' 3583

'188

.0322 5

.0005

.0007 CHS 1/2 diagonal

.4001x10 2.154x10' 2161.

.0943

.0285 5

cof. =.8

.0008

.0006 CH6 1/2 diagonal

.40C8x10 2.178x10' 2876.

.0969

.0285 5

cof. =.2

.0008

.0006 C22 pertn of CO2

.716x10 2.653=10' 4282.

.1494

.0460 5

6x14, futt,

.0009

.0005 Cof. =.8 (new gaps)

C23 sertn of C03 1.279x10 4.289x10' 6501

.2099

.0690 5

6x14, Full,

.0015

.0007 heavier fuel Cof. =.8 (new saps) i First 'line indicates values at top corner, second line indicates values at baseplate.

Table 5 (cratinued)'

}

PACK DISPLACEMENTS AND SUPPORT LOADS Maxlam Maxim m' Verticat vertical Maximm manicus Load on Stab

- Load on Strb Shear Load Displacemmt s (4 pedestals)

(singte pedestet)

-(singte pedestal)

(in.)

R.El a e rks 11h1 IL.1 11 1 p1 gi 220 Existing anck 1.166410 7.424x10' 1 % 8.

.0748

.0913 5

10x11 Fult,Cof. =.8

.0028

.0042 225 Existice tack

.7161x10 5.124x10' 14568.

.0739

.0742 5

10x11 1/2 x positive-x

.0038

.0044 Cof. =.8 227 Existing Rack

.7240410 5.189x10' 14218

.0687

.0771 5

s 10x11 1/2 diagonal,

.0056

.0043 Cof. =.8 325 Existing rack

.2915x10 1.5672x10' 3134

.0409

.0349 5

10x11

.0289

.0243 6 cells, caf. =.2 BM1 Wew R e 11x12

.6144x10 2.699x10' 4196

.033?

.0714 5

a (1/2x) tSE,

.0005

.0005 Cof. =.1 BH2 New Rack 11:12

.6339x10 2.899x10' 2956

.0338

.0701 5

(

(1/2x) 551

.0005

.0006 Cof. =.2 SM3 new mack 11,12

.6341x10 2.784s10' 3944

.0296

.0577 5

I (1/2 Jingones)

.0004

.0007 SSE, Cof. =.8 eM4 heu pack Six12

.6342x10 2.784x10' 2919

.0296

.0601 5

l (1/2 diagon:1)

.0004

.0007 SSE, Cof. =,2 i

500 Esisting rack

.7825x10 4.03x10' 11602

.0195

.0506 5

i 87.10, futt 0007

.0023 Cof. =.8 5

4 501 Existing Rock

.1661x10

,9437,3g 2062

.0064

.0152 8x10

.0003

.0008 l

6 cetis leaded l

Cof. =.8 First line indicates values at top corner, second.line indicates values at baseplate.

,N w ~.

/ 7 / /

/

(!

E Xl STI N G RACKS

/

/

[/

DOUNDARY OF

/

EXISTING R ACKS -

/

O

/,_____z___.__[

p c)();

'~

M

'[

C~2 C"l e

-l'l X 6

' l,'

13 - 2 l'1 x 6 A

13-1 12X11 5N ll X 11 12 X 11 o

W' _ __.

tg l

,_ c S y' _r k

E 77' 90" 90" l

70 5,

77" REF*

4 _,

r l '/2 (TY P. )

- 4 0 - O,-

M-1,10 D U L E LAYOUT ercune i (Replaces Figure 2.1 of Licensing Report)

(Dimensional Changes Circled)

M ,

6 u

ah--.-

4-,,s u

-a x

.,as.

.=

+

n

..au m

gesugi <W Mer==.s

-4 6

4 l j

//

w O

l N

//

b y

P 16 O

C_

C CD

-x x

x x

CD CO CO CD U"J f.C b

/

a f

.C C-C O

W Q

x x

x X

/

CD CD CD C3-r,c/

M

• t

/1/-t-4

/

m e

e e

e f f C

C C

/

M A

W

@a

/n e

e o

e-x x

x x

y

/

t.

m a

e m

g.

.co e

e

,r a

a x

x M-x W

g 0

~f M

e e

e

. 5 M

l C

/

m l'

4 oa a

m e

/'

e e w__-

x x

i m

- CD

=

U if h

88S"'"*=**

W N

1

=

n 1

A l

L.

E

&mM, 9

-i g, ;.-

N' 2:

W D

O W

w s

6 C:

h 5

O d

-g

-- u

\\-

w C.

'2 C -

n e

(f) '

CO s

N u

Z M:

x C

-u

- > - =

OO O

eo U

i..

M O-w 4

f.

i-l'

_