LR-N17-0170, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request for Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate
| ML17333A853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/2017 |
| From: | Carr E Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17333A851 | List: |
| References | |
| CAC MF9930, LAR H17-03, LR-N17-0170 | |
| Download: ML17333A853 (21) | |
Text
Attachment 3 Contains Proprietary Information to be Withheld from Public Disclosure Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390 PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 1 0 CFR 50. 90 NOV 27 2017 LR- N 1 7-0 1 70 LAR H 1 7-03 U . S . Nuclear Reg u latory Com m ission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington , DC 20555-000 1 Hope Creek Generating Station Renewed Facility Operating License No. N P F-57 NRC Docket No. 50-354 S u bject: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY RECAPTURE POWER UPRATE (CAC NO. MF9930)
References 1 . PSEG letter to N RC, "License Amendment Req uest for Measurement Uncertai nty Recapture ( M U R) Power Uprate," dated July 7, 201 7 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17188A260) 2 . N RC e-mail to PSEG , "Hope Creek M U R - Final Req uest for Additional Informatio n , " dated October 1 7, 201 7 (ADAMS Accession No. M L 1 7290801 3)
In the Reference 1 letter, PSEG Nuclear LLC ( PSEG) subm itted a license amend ment req uest for Hope Creek Generating Station ( H CGS). The proposed amendment wil l increase the rated thermal power (RTP) level from 3840 megawatts thermal ( MWt) to 3902 MWt, and make Tech nical Specification (TS) changes as necessary to support operation at the uprated power leve l .
I n t h e Reference 2 , the U . S. N u clear Reg ulatory Commission staff provided PSEG a Req uest for Add itional I nformation (RAI) to support the N RC staff's detailed tech nical review of Reference 1 .
This letter provides the req uested i nformation in Attachment 1 ( Non-Proprietary) and (Pro prietary).
Attachment 3 Contains Proprietary Information to be Withheld from Public Disclosure Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390 Page 2 10 CFR 50.90 LR-N17-0170 contains proprietary information as defined by 1 0 CFR 2. 390. G E-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC (GEH), as the owner of the p roprietary information, has executed an affid avit (provided in Attach ment 2) identifying that the proprietary information has been handled and classified as proprietary, is customarily held in confidence, and has been withheld from public d isclosu re. G E H req uests that the proprietary information in Attachment 3 be with held from public d isclosure , in accordance with the req uirements of 1 0 CFR 2 .390(a)(4).
PSEG has d etermined that the information provided in this s u bm ittal does not alter the concl usions reached i n the 10 CFR 50. 92 no sig nificant hazards determ ination previously s u bm itted . In addition, the i nformation provided in this subm ittal does not affect the bases for concluding that neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the proposed amend ment.
No new reg ulatory com mitments are established by this submittal. If you have any q uestions or req u i re add itional i nformation, please do not hesitate to contact M r. Brian Thomas at (856) 339-2022 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on Ll/?7/17 ( Date)
Attachment 3 Contains Proprietary Information to be Withheld from Public Disclosure Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390 NOV 27 2017 Page 3 10 CFR 50.90 LR-N17-0170 Attachments
- 1. Response to SNPB Req uest for Additional I nformation Regard ing MUR Power U prate Non-Proprietary (GEH Reference DOC-0006-01 06-086 Attachment 2) 2 . G EH Affidavit supporting the withholding o f information in Attachment 3 from public d isclosure
- 3. Response to SNPB Req uest for Add itional I nformation Regardi ng MU R Power Uprate G EH Proprietary Information (GEH Reference DOC-0006-0 1 06-086 Attachment 1 )
cc: M r. D. Dorman, Administrator, Region I, N RC Ms. L. Reg ner, Project Manager, NRC N RC Senior Resident I nspector, Hope Creek M r. P. M u l l igan, Chief, NJBN E M r. L. Marabella, Corporate Com m itment Tracking Coordinator M r. T. MacEwen, Hope Creek Comm itment Tracking Coord inator LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 Response to S N PB Request for Additional Information Regard i ng M U R Power Uprate Non-Proprietary This is the non-proprietary version of Attachment 3 of this letter which has the proprietary information rem oved. Portions of the document that have been removed are indicated by wh ite space inside open and closed brackets as shown here (( )) .
(GEH Reference DOC-0006-0106-086 Attachment 2)
LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 SNPB-1 Title 1 0 of the U . S . Code of Federa l Reg ulations ( 1 0 CFR), part 50, appendix A, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," criterion 1 0 (i.e . , GDC 1 0) states, "The reactor core and associated coolant, control, and protection systems shall be designed with appropriate margin to assu re that specified acceptable fuel design lim its are not exceeded d u ring any condition of normal operation, incl uding the effects of antici pated operational occurrences."
In order to provide assurance that 99.9 percent of the fuel rods in the core do not enter transition boiling in the event of an antici pated operational occurrence, the safety l im it (SL) m i n i m u m critical power ratio (M CPR) is establ ished as a specified acceptable fuel desig n limit.
The SLMCPR is a limit placed on the critical power ratio (CPR). If a fuel rod has a CPR of 1 . 0, it wou ld be pred icted to enter transition boiling. The SLMCPR provides a margin to account for uncertainties associated with the correlation used to estimate the critical power ratio (CPR),
small variations in the pin- and bundle-rad ial power distrib ution in the core, and instrument monitoring.
The uncertainties associated with the m ethods used to estimate the effect of small variations in the rad ial power distribution in the core are sensitive to the void conditions in the fuel b und les.
This sensitivity is evaluated for plants operating in high-bundle-power, h ig h-exit-void-fraction cond itions in General Electric - H itachi (GEH) Licensing Topical Report (L TR) N EDC-331 73P-A, Revision 4, "Ap plicability of GE Methods to Expanded Operating Domains" (ADAMS Package No. ML123130130). Th is report, which is approved for use by the N RC staff, is also known as the Interi m Methods LTR ( I M LTR).
Fig ures 2- 1 , 2-3 , and 2-4 of the Thermal Power Optim ization (TPO) Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) ind icate that challenging void cond itions may exist at HCNGS upon i mplementation of the measurement uncertainty recapture uprate ( M U R) (ADAMS Accession Nos. M L 1 71 88A263 (publicly available) and ML17188A270 (proprietary)). First, HCNGS is predicted to have bundle power levels that are h igher than the other plants shown in the experiential database. Second, the bundle exit void fractions are sim ilarly high, approaching 90 percent.
- Justify the appl ication of the nuclear and thermal-hyd raulic desig n uncertainties in the G ESTAR-11 analytic process without the I M LTR penalties that are req uired of plants that operate in the h ig h bund le power, high maximum channel exit void fraction cond itions that appear to be associated with the H CNGS M U R. In particular, the plots shown indicate that H CNGS wil l be operating with bundle exit void cond itions that would req uire the application of the penalty suggested by Lim itation 5 as contained in the I M LTR. A com parison of the attrib utes , d isplayed in the fig ures listed above, to other plants operating with q ualitatively similar characteristics (e.g . , domestical ly l icensed , Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis, Extended Power Uprate, Thermal Power Optim ization ) would suffice for this purpose .
- Provide evidence that, in l ig ht of the significantly different operating conditions between extended power uprate i m plementation and MU R, the dispositions contained in the TPO LTR (TL TR, i .e . , NEDC-32938P-A, "Generic Guidelines and Eval uations for General E lectric Boiling Water Reactor Thermal Power Optim ization" (ADAMS Package No.
2 of 1 4
Attachment 1 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 ML17076A207)) relative to fuel desig n, operation, and thermal margin assessment, are applicable. Analytic resu lts of two or several potentially limiting anticipated operational occu rrences in the M U R operating conditions may provide such evidence .
SNPB-1 RESPONSE :
As stated in the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) TSAR ( Reference 1 -1 ) Append ix A d is positions of the I M LTR (Reference 1 -2) limitations, neither Lim itation and Cond ition ( L&C) 9.4
'SLMCPR 1' nor L&C 9 . 5 'SLMCPR 2' apply to HCGS at M U RITPO conditions.
I M LTR L&C 9.5 specifically appl ies to plants licensed to operate in the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus ( M ELLLA+) domai n . The HCGS TSAR does not include a M ELLLA+ domai n . I M L TR L&C 9.4 was removed in I M L TR Revision 4.
The add itional cycle-to-cycle variation com parison information ( I M LTR L&C 9.24 fig ures) with a similar plant is provided below in the response to SN PB-1 Bul let 1 .
As stated in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the TLTR ( Reference 1 -3), the transient analysis resu lts are not presented in the TSAR, but rather are deferred to the cycle-specific eval uation presented in the Supplemental Reload Licensing Report (SRLR) that implements M U RITPO. H CGS Cycle 22 is the planned cycle to implement M U RITPO conditions .
The lim iting transient information for HCGS Cycle 22 is provided below in response to SN PB-1 B u l let 2 .
SNPB-1 RESPONSE (BULLET 1 ):
The operating cond itions between Current Licensed Thermal Power {CTLP) and MURITPO are not sig nificantly d ifferent. The o bserved trends are consistent with 1 8-month cycle length core desig n performance and with in existing cycle-to-cycle variation.
As shown in H CGS TSAR Fig ure 2-1 th rough Fig ure 2-6 supporting the I M LTR L&C 9.24 disposition, the HCGS TSAR eq uil ibrium ( EQ ) core design with a l l G N F2 fuel is very similar to the HCGS CL TP EQ core desig n with all G N F2 fuel. These resu lts can also be compared in the same fig ures to the HCGS Cycle 20 reload l icensing analysis at CLTP with all G E 1 4 fuel and the H CGS Cycle 21 reload licensi ng analysis at CLTP with the first reload of G N F2 fuel. These H CGS specific data series demonstrate that the cycle-to-cycle variation in the plotted parameters are not very sensitive to the effects of the MURITPO change. The sensitivity is d riven by the specifics of the core design and the supported bundle powers of the fuel product l i ne that can ach ieve acceptable design margins and maintain compl iance to the Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFD Ls ).
Com parison to other plants i n the fleet conti nues to demonstrate maxi m u m bundle powers are less than 8 MW and maximum exit void fractions are less than 90o/o .
T o a i d in the com parison o f cycle-to-cycle variation, the HCGS data ( I M LT R L&C 9.24 figures) for the reload licensing analysis for the last 1 0 cycles (since the first reload of G E 1 4 fuel in Cycle 1 3) is shown with the G NF2 eq u ilibri um data at CLTP and M U RITPO conditions in 3 of 1 4
Attachment 1 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 Table 1 -1 and in Fig ures 1 - 1 through 1 -6 in this Req uest for Add itional Information (RAI) response . The first reload of G N F2 at HCGS was in Cycle 2 1 . The H CGS CLTP condition was im plemented in Cycle 1 5. The planned MUR!TPO implementation at H CGS is in Cycle 22.
To offer a com parison of cycle-to-cycle variation with a similar plant ( BWR/4 type with an 1 8-month cycle and a 764 bundle core size), the last five cycles of the Plant X reload licensing analysis with G E 1 4 fuel is also s hown in Table 1 -1 and in Fig u res 1 -1 through 1 -6.
The overall trends with power level and fuel prod uct line are ind isting u ishable between the last 1 0 cycles of data at HCGS and in comparison, to the last 5 cycles of data at Plant X.
G N F2 fuel ca n operate with a h ig her bundle power than G E 1 4 (because of a hig her Thermal Mechanical Operating Limit (TMOL) definition) and be com pliant with margins to the SAFDLs.
However, G E 1 4 fuel can also have hig her exit void fractions than G N F2 fuel with a lower bundle power when the in-channel flows are lower.
Based upon the comparative information provided in response to this RAI, implementation of the M U R!TPO at H CGS does not introd uce any new conditions outside the operating experience relative to the application of the existing Nuclear Reg ulatory Com m ission ( N RC) approved nuclear and thermal-hydraulic design uncertainties in the G ESTAR I I (Reference 1 -4) analytical process.
SNPB-1 RESPONSE (BULLET 2):
Resu lts from the HCGS Cycle 2 1 Antici pated Operational Occurrences (AOO) analyses performed at 3 , 840 MWt were com pared to HCGS Cycle 22 AOO analyses performed at 3, 902 MWt. Table 1 -2 provides the uncorrected Delta Critical Power Ratio (DCPR) results for the potential ly lim iting Load Rejection No Bypass (LRN B P) and Turbine Trip No Bypass (TTNBP) cases for both End of Cycle (EOC) and Middle of Cycle ( M OC) exposures includ ing consideration of operation at the low and high core flow poi nts supported by the H CGS Maxi m u m Extended Load Line Lim it Analysis ( M ELLLA) and I n creased Core Flow ( I CF) operati ng flexi bility options.
The DCPR results for the LRN B P and TTN BP EOC and MOC cases show up to approximately a 0 . 0 1 im provement for Cycle 22 at 3, 902 MWt versus Cycle 21 at 3, 840 MWt, except for the TTN BP M ELLLA case at MOC which shows a very slig ht increase in DCPR for the Cycle 22 3, 902 MWt case . All lim iting cases for the events and cond itions being considered show less than a 0 . 0 1 change in DCPR. These changes are very small and with in the cycle to cycle variation expected due to exposure and power shape changes. The DCPR results do not indicate that there is a trend of im proved results for MURITPO conditions. Th is demonstrates that there is no significant d ifference in transient analysis thermal marg in results with the HCGS M U RITPO power increase and confirms the valid ity of the g eneric disposition for AOOs contai ned in the TPO LTR.
4 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 Table 1-1 EOC Peak Nodal Exposure Peak Nodal Exposure P la n t Cycle (GWd/ST)
Plant X Cycle 1 5 RLA (GE 1 4) 15 54. 987 Plant X Cycle 1 6 RLA (GE1 4) 16 54. 646 Plant X Cycle 1 7 RLA (GE 1 4) 17 55. 1 34 Plant X Cycle 1 8 RLA (GE1 4) 18 55. 025 Plant X Cycle 1 9 RLA (GE1 4) 19 54. 835 H CG S Cycle 1 3 RLA (GE1 4/SVEA96 ) 13 47. 060 HCGS Cycle 1 4 RLA (GE1 4/SVEA96) 14 5 1 . 1 59 H CG S Cycle 1 5 RLA (GE1 4/SVEA96 ) 15 55. 950 HCGS Cycle 1 6 RLA (GE1 4) 16 55.433 H CGS Cycle 1 7 RLA (GE 1 4) 17 55. 694 H CGS Cycle 1 8 RLA (GE1 4) 18 55. 722 H CGS Cycle 1 9 RLA (GE 1 4) 19 56. 645 HCGS Cycle 20 RLA (G E1 4) 20 55. 5 1 6 H CGS Cycle 21 RLA ( G N F2/G E 1 4) 21 56. 268 H CGS Cycle 22 RLA (GNF2/G E 1 4) 22 56. 549 HCGS CL TP EQ ( G N F2) EQ - 1 1 6. 6o/o 55 . 478 H CGS TSAR EQ (GNF2) EQ - 1 1 8. 6%> 54. 523 5 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 Table 1-2 Comparison of AOO Analysis Results C ycl e Cycle Cycle Cycle Change Change 22 21 22 21 Transient Flow Exposure C22- C22-DCPR DCPR DCPR DCPR C21 C21 GNF2 GNF2 GE14 GE14 LRN B P ICF EOC 0. 2876 0. 2930 -0 . 0054 0.2601 0 . 2658 -0. 0057 LRN B P M ELLLA EOC 0.270 1 0.28 1 9 -0. 0 1 1 8 0.2639 0.2693 -0. 0054 TTN B P ICF EOC 0. 2787 0 . 2835 -0 . 0048 0.2508 0.2554 -0. 0046 TTN B P M E LLLA EOC 0. 2677 0.2801 -0. 0 1 24 0.2591 0.2651 -0 . 0060 LRN B P ICF MOC 0. 2700 0 .2727 -0. 0027 0.2503 0. 2535 -0. 0032 LRNB P M ELLLA MOC 0. 2696 0.2702 -0. 0006 0.246 1 0.2468 -0 . 0007 TTN B P ICF MOC 0.26 1 4 0. 2642 -0. 0028 0. 2407 0. 2436 -0 . 0029 TTN B P M ELLLA MOC 0.261 5 0 . 2608 +0.0007 0. 2376 0. 2362 +0.00 1 4 6 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 8.0 7.5 7.0 (I) 0 6.5 a..
(I) c m
E 6.0 E
- x (lj
- E 5.5 5.0
'"'"*"""'*'*"*Plant X Cycle 15 RLA (GE14) ******Plant X Cycle 16 RLA(GE14} *Plant X Cycle 17 RLA(GE14)
'Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14) ""'"'"Plant X Cycle 19 RLA (GE14} """"-HCGS Cycle 13 RlA (GE14/SVEA96) 4.5
-HCGS Cycle 14 RlA (GE141SVEA96) -HCGS Cycle 15 RlA(GE141SVEA96) -HCGS Cycle 16 RlA(GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 17 RlA(GE14) -HCGS Cycle 18 RlA(GE14) -HCGS Cycle 19 RlA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 20 RlA (GE14} -+-HCGS Cycle 21 RlA (GNF2/GE14) -HCGS Cycle 22 RlA (GNF2/GE14)
Figure 1-1 Maximum Bundle Power versus Cycle Exposure 7 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 12 ,-------- ** ** * * *** * * * ** * ****** ................................ . . .........,........ -. ... ,_,.,.. ______ ,___.. ,,..... ..-.....-..----r **--------- - *---- - ---** --, -*-****-* ------***-.. ,
11
.r::.
e 0
10 "C
c
- J m
Q) 9 0
c..
(tl Q) c..
... 8
-0 u:::
7 + t
- --**-**--**--*.. ******..*-- ***...............................jr**-***--****....-*-******-- t *********-******-***- ..-- t- i
*-*---*-**-* -----*--**---**- + t
- ----*-**--**-*-* .. -*..***-- * ..***----*.. ******-*********-*1***-****-------------*-1
""'""""Plant X Cycle 15 RLA (GE14) "* '"**Plant X Cycle 16 RLA(GE14) * ** Plant X Cycle 17 RLA (GE14) 6 *'""""*"*""'"Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14) "'""4**m*"PiantX Cycle 19 RLA(GE14} -HCGS Cycle 13 RLA(GE14/SVEA913)
-HCGS Cycle 14 RLA (GE14/SVEA96} -HCGS Cycle 15 RLA (GE14/SVEA96} .......,HCGS Cycle 16 RLA (GE14)
....-HCGS Cycle 17 RLA(GE14) -HCGS Cycle 18 RLA(GE14) .......,HCGS Cycle 19 RLA (GE14)
HCGS Cycle20 RLA(GE14) HCGS Cycle 21 RLA(GNF21GE14) -HCGS Cycle 22 RLA (GNF21GE14)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST)
Figure 1-2 Coolant Flow for Peak Power Bundle versus Cycle Exposure 8 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 G)
- 0 c
- J Ol 0.86 a..
..lll::
(IS 0.84 G) a..
a..
.2 c 0.82 +*-***--*..**---*..*-*-**1--*-**--****--*--*---+-*--*-*-----*----*--+*----------------+*----..-----------if-----*-*--*---***--******-r:
0 E
u.. 0. 80 +-********--*-***********-+*..--***----*****-*******-+*----*--**--*--*---*---****----*-*---+--*-*---*--**-**--*!*--****--**----***-*+*****---*******.. -*******-+*-****-***---*----****--** *+-*..*-----*----*---
'"C
- g 0.7 8 1*-**-***-*-**--*******-i***--*****-****-*-****-+-*-*----**--***----*-*******-*-*******-**--*-**-r-*----*---*---+--*--*---***-------l---*****--***********-**..*****+..***-***-******--*------+-----*--------******l w
- 0. 76 +*************'"'""""'"'""""'"-t""""""'"""'"""'"""""+'""""'"""""*'*""""'""+"'""""'"""""'""-*--+---**--**"-"""-"'"""""""""""'""""""+""""""'"'""'"""-"'"+"'"'"""""-"""---+*-*-.. """'"'""""'""'-"'"'l 0.74 +................................+--------*---'""'"'""""-"'!"'""'"""'"'"'"'""'"'"'"""'"-----*----*--------**+---------------------+---*---------*---""""""'""+--------*--**---------------*+---**----------------*------*+------*----*-----*-----l
'"""*Plant X Cycle 15 RLA (GE14) *m'""Piant X Cycle 16 RLA (GE14) Plant XCycle 17 RLA (GE14)
,,.,,,,,,,,,,,.plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14) '""&*Plant X Cycle 19 RLA (GE14) -"--HCGSCycle 13 RLA (GE14JSVEA96)
-HCGSCycle 14 RLA (GE14/SVEA96} -HCGSCycle 15 RLA (GE14/SVEA96) -..HCGSCycle 16 RLA (GE14) 0.72 -..HCGSCycle 17RLA(GE14} -HCGSCycle 18 RLA (GE14) -..HCGSC;*cle 19 RLA (GE14)
HCGSCycle 20 RLA (GE14) ..,..._HCGSCycle 21 RLA (GNF2/GE14} -HCGSCycle 22 RLA (GNF2JGE14)
-o..HCGSCLTP EQ *1>'!*-HCGS TSAR EQ 0.70 +-----t----+--li---+---l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST)
Figure 1-3 Exit Void Fraction for Peak Power Bundle versus Cycle Exposure 9 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 c 0.86 0
- g E
LL 0.84 "C
- +-**-*-*-**--**--********i--*-**-****-***..-*---*--*+*----..-------*--*+--.................................,.:
- x 0.82 +-********-***-********--+-**** --*****-**-*---
w (i) c c
Ill
..c 0.80 +... .........._ ...............-j---------. .*---. .. .-f-..................................j..... .._,............____+--........---------i------------i--- ..------i----------+---..--- -..--.. . .;
1
(.)
0.78 +... ..................... .......+-*----*-. ........-....+............-....._..,,...+----..--.................--+--..........................t..----------..*-*----f.................. ................+.................. ...........+....,..____..............;
0.76 +-*-*""'"""'"'"'"'"+-**-......-........_.._........ ...........-...--+----........................._-+_................ .........+. ....................-.........f......... ..........-..........+..................... ........ ..+...............................;
- "*'"'*****-Plant X -Plant X Cycle 17 RLA{GE14)
"'"'''"""'Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14} _,.,,_HCGS Cycle 13 R!.A (GE141SVEA96)
........, HCGS Cycle 14 RlA {GE14JSVEA96) -HCGS Cycle 15 RLA{GE14/SVEA96) _.,...HCGS Cycle 16 R!.A (GE14) 0.72 ._HCGS Cycle 17 RlA (GE14} .......,HCGS Cycle 18 RLA (GE14) HCGS Cycle 19 R!.A(GE14)
""""%,.H .. CGS Cycle 20 RlA (GE14) -+-HCGS Cycle 21 RLA (GNF2iGE14) -HCGS Cycle 22 RlA (GNF2/GE14)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST}
Figure 1-4 Maximum Channel Exit Void Fraction versus Cycle Exposure 1 0 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 0.78 0.76 c
0 0.74 E
- c; 0.72
- x w
C) 0.7 0 E
! 0.68 0
u 0.66 0.64
"""'""""'Plant X Cycle 15 RLA (GE14) """'PiantXCycle 16RLA(GE14) PlantXCycle 17RLA(GE14)
""""'"""""'Plant X Cycle18 RLA (GE14) """'"'*'Plant X Cycle 19 RLA(GE14) *-M.,. HCGS Cycle13 RLA (GE141SVEA96) 0 .62 -HCGSCycle 14RLA (GE14/SVEA96) -HCGSCycle15 RLA (GE141SVEA96) _.,_HCGSCycle16RLA(GE14)
-HCGSCycle17 RLA(GEI4) -HCGSCycle18 RLA(GE14) HCGS Cycle 19 RLA (GE14)
HCGSCycle20 RLA (GE14) -HCGSCycle21 RLA(GNF2iGE14} -HCGS Cycle 22RLA(GNF2/GE14)
.,;;:;-. HCGSCLTP EQ (GNF2) **II**" HCGS TSAR EQ (GNF2) 0 .60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST)
Figure 1-5 Core Average Exit Void Fraction versus Cycle Exposure 1 1 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 14+-------------------------*-------------------+-------------------+-------------------------------------;!---------------------+-------------------------
12 6---------------------t***-******--*****-*****----+-*-****-*****------------+---------------4-------------------+-***-----------------l--****-----***----*-****+**-**-*************************+*****--****-***--------1 4+***-********************-******t---*-***-***--*--------+-------------******------+----------------+----**-----------------------------****-****-**i**-**----------------------+----------*-***------+-*-***----------------l
,.,,,,,... . plant Cycle 15 (GE14) Cycle 17 RlA (GE14)
- """"""Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14) """'*'"""'"Plant X Cycle 19 RlA (GE14) ,.-*HCGS Cycle 13 RlA (GE141SVEA96) 2 -HCGS Cycle 14 RLA(GE141SVEA96) -HCGS Cycle 15 RLA (GE14/SVEA96) _...,.HCGS Cycle 16 RLA(GE14)
....H ...., CGS Cycle 17 RLA (GE14) ....H ..,._ CGS Cycle 18 RLA (GE14) HCGS Cycle 19 RLA(GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 22 RLA (GIF2/GE14) 0 +----------+----+-----
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST)
Figure 1-6 Peak LHGR versus Cycle Exposure References 1 -1 . G E H itachi Nuclear Energy, "Safety Analysis Report for Hope Creek Generating Station Thermal Power Optim ization," NEDC-33871 P, Revision 0, April 201 7.
1 -2 . G E H itachi Nuclear Energy, "Applicability o f G E Methods t o Expanded Operating Domai ns," N EDC-331 73P-A Revision 4, Novem ber 201 2.
1 -3. G E Nuclear Energy, "Generic Guidelines and Evaluations for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Thermal Power Optim ization," N EDC-32938 P-A Revision 2, May 2003.
1 -4. G lobal Nuclear Fuel , "General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,"
NE DE-240 1 1 -P-A-24 and NEDE-240 1 1 -P-A-24-US, March 20 1 7.
1 2 of 1 4
Attachment 1 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 SNPB-2 G DC 1 0 req uires that the reactor core be desig ned with appropriate margin to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits (SAFDLs) are not exceeded during any condition of normal operation , including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences. GDC 1 2 req uires that the reactor core be designed to assure that power osci llations, which can result in conditions exceed ing SAFDLs, are not possible or can be reliably and readily detected and suppressed. 1 0 CFR 50.36 defines li miting system safety settings (LSSS) and req uires their inclusion in faci lity Tech nical Specifications. At HCNGS, the LSSS that protect the core from conditions that would chal lenge conformance to G DC 1 0 and 1 2 are req uired to be operable a bove a threshold value for monitoring marg i n to the thermal lim its that assure com pliance with these G DC.
The thermal lim its monitoring threshold is based on ((
))
H CNGS provided an evaluation, in section 2 . 2 of the TSAR, demonstrating that ((
)) . Then, in Section 2.4.2 of the TSAR, the license states that HCNGS wil l maintain its thermal lim its monitoring threshold at 24 percent for operational conven ience, and based on a judg ment of adeq uacy. This is inconsistent with the basis (( )) for the TLTR.
In light of not (( )), provide a detailed analysis o r eval uation supporti ng a thermal lim its monitoring threshold that exceeds the
(( )) val ue.
SNPB-2 RESPONSE:
N EDC-32938P-A ( Reference 2-1 ) states that the thermal limits mon itoring threshold ((
)) . For H CGS M U R, the thermal lim its monitoring threshold is increased by 1 5 MWt (0.4% thermal power, which is the difference between 24o/o CLTP and 24o/o M U R rated thermal power ( RTP) relative to CL TP) in order to maintain the same percent power level ((
)) . Standard Technical Specification Bases 2 . 1 . 1 . 1 a ( Reference 2-2),
which is consistent with the H CGS Technical Specification Bases 2 . 1 . 1 , describes a key com ponent of the justification for originally esta bl ishing the thermal lim its mon itoring threshold at 25o/o RTP, which was likewise considered to provide a comparable margin to the other SAFDLs .
I n the bases , a conservative factor of two was introd uced by orig inally establishing the thermal lim its monitoring threshold at 25o/o RTP compared to 50% RTP. From Reference 2-2 :
Since the pressure drop in the bypass region is essentially all elevation head, the core pressure drop at low power and flows will always be> 4. 5 psi. Analyses (Ref. 2) show that with a bundle flow of 28 x 103 lblhr, bundle pressure drop is 1 3 of 1 4
Attachment 1 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 nearly independent of bundle power and has a value of 3. 5 psi. Thus, the bundle flow with a 4.5 psi driving head will be> 28 x 103 lblhr. Full scale ATLAS test data taken at pressures from 14. 7 psia to BOO psia indicate that the fuel assembly critical power at this flow is approximately 3. 35 MWt. With the design peaking factors, this corresponds to a THERMAL POWER> 50 % RTP. Thus, a THERMAL POWER limit of 25% RTP for reactor pressure < 785 psig is conservative.
For H CGS M U R with a thermal lim its mon itoring threshold at 24o/o RTP, a design peaking factor of 2 . 733, which is sign ificantly higher than expected peaking factors , would be req uired to use the available margin orig inally established in the Technical Specification Bases
[(3, 902 MWt) * (24°/o RTP) I (764 fuel assemblies) * (2. 733 peaking factor) = 3 . 35 MWt] .
For G N F2 fuel , Stern test data is com parable to the ATLAS test data cited in the Technical Specification Bases . ((
))
Therefore, an increase in thermal power of 0.4o/o is deemed insignificant relative to the margin introd u ced in orig inally defining the fuel thermal monitori ng threshold .
References:
2-1 . G E Nuclear Energy, "Generic Guidelines and Eval uations for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Thermal Power Optim ization ," NEDC-32938P-A, Revision 2 , May 2003.
2-2 . N U REG-1 433, "Standard Technical Specifications General Electric BWR/4 Plants,"
Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4.0, April 20 1 2 .
1 4 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 GEH Affidavit supporting the withholding of information in Attachment 3 from public disclosure LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 GE-Hitaehi Nudf'aT Energy ....\.llnericas LLC
..4FFID-\VIT I, Li11.a K. Sdliddein state as foUmvs:
(1) I am a Senior Project :Iv1:ntager, N.PP/Services Licensing, Regulato1)" ll\ffuirs,
... GE-Hitac:hi Nuclear Energy .A:mericas LLC CGEH'), and hru'e ten. <:leregated the fbuction of revie1.vmg the infonnatiou described in p::ur.agrap:b (2) wlridt is. sought to be *tvit]l.beld, and ha'ljj<e beeu authorized to apply for its witlmolding..
(2) The information sought to be witlllreld is cottfained in Attachme.nt 1 of GEH letter, DOC-0006-0106-086, GEH Response to NRC IPO S:NPB R...o!\Is. :0!1 Support of tl1e Hope Creek TPO LAR,*** dated Novembe:r 17, 2017. Tlre GEH propri.etary :U:Iiforn1.1tion in Attadu.ne:nt 1, wmdt is entitled *Response to SN1PB L.!\Is :in Support of the Hope Creek TPO L.t\.R,"' is identified by a dotted tutderline inside dml.lMe square brackets.. ([Til:
qtk-1-;}]!f!lJg.H In. each case. t.he super:;cl"ipt notation J} :refers to P:.urgrapb (3) of this affidavit, \Vmch provides the basis foc the: proprietary determination..
(3) In. :making tlli.;; application for witbbolding of proprietary imimnation of v,;bich it i the O\\'lrer or lice.nsee GEH relies upon tlre exemption fmm. disd.ostlfe set foob. :Ut the Froodam o_fl11J"onn,tttcm Act ("'FOV\."), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5.52(0)(4), and tbe Trade .S:lCJets Act, H! U.S.C.
Sec... 1905, .and N"RC regulations 10 CFR 9.17(a)(4), and 2.J90(a)(4) fo:r trade secrets (Exentption 4).. The uta.terial :for wlricll e!'l.!e:mptiou. from dlisdasure is h.ere sougl!rt abo q1lifies 1mder the 11:1rrower defmition. of trade secret, withi£1 *the nneanfugs assigned to those tern'L fo1f pt.t:rposes of FOLA. Exemption 4 ID,. respectively. Critical wfass Energy Projed v.. Nttdear Res:nlaf.OC'if Co1m11issioo. 9'75 F.2d. 871 (D.C. Cir.. 1992), and Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA,, '704 :F..2d 1280 (D..C. C:ir. 11983).
(4) The it!lforu'J.atiou sought to be ii\r:ithbeld is considered to be propriefat;{ for the reasons set forth m. pamgral:tlm (4)-a. and (4)b. Som.e exanles. <Clf categories ofimonn.1tioo that .fit mto the definition <Ctfprop.rietary info1111a.t:iou are:
a.. Inftm.naoon lbat d&loses a process. method, or app..1ratu.. it!:tduding :SlTppGrtmg ctata and anal}ses. where prevention of its use by GEHs competitlJH witl1out license fium GEH constitutes a co1npetitive economic a.dltalttage Oli.tff other companies;,
- b. :fufomliation that, if tlsed by a c-oo1petitor, ,.L\o1.'dd red'uce their expenditare of resources or m1prove their competitive position in the de£:igt!l, lllt.111Uf..1Jcturre, sbip.m.e11t.,
mtalll.ation, assurance of qu.1lity, or 1kens.mg of a sil'Dibr prom:ct;
- c. lilfOOlt::ttion tl1.1t :reveals aspects of past, present, or fL1.ture GEH customer-ftlnded dlevelopnrent plans ancl progran:lS,. re£:ultillg m pote11.tial pr.odncts to GEH d Inftmnatioo tbat discloses 1radle secret or potmtiaUy patentable ,subject JU'latter for
\:'i.riD.dl itt may be desirable tro obbin patent proted:i<m..
(5) To address 10 CFR. 2JOO(b)(4J, the :information. soogl1t to be withlleld is being sttbu.nitted to NRC in confidence. The infun11ation is of a sort ctlstonwilly held in confidence by* GEH, LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 and is i:n fact so held.. TI1e infonnation soogbt to *re witlmeld lt.,;s, to the best of my J.aro*wledge a11d belief, cml.s:is.tent]:y been he]di in coofidlence by GEH., not been disclosed pnblidy, and not been nude ;;r1ililab1e m. public s;otmes AU dlisdosures to third parties, induding any required transinniUals to the NRC, :b.'lve 'bee.n-1tnade, or n1ust be 1nade, pursuant to regulatory pmvisioo"l: or :Pm1Jrietaary or confide.ul!ia"!ilty greeme:uts tbat pro'llide :for maintaining the irt.fM.maion in ll)onfideltce. Tite :initifilll deJli1gnati.ou of trus info:rm..1tioo as.
proprietary information, and the sn:rflbseqnent ste_ps taken. to :lfR\i'lf1lf its tut;.m.1ho.rized disdosttre,. are as set fortJh in the follo'"*"ling paragraphs (6*) and (7).
(6) Initial approval *of pr:op.rietary ttreafilil!errtt of a danmteut is. 111ade by the 111a11ager of tlte origmatmg component, ""vbo is tl1e perso n nnost litely to be acqtlk1iutedl. "'ith the *value and sensitivity o f the ID.foo11atio.n in :relation to iudtas*h"y 1mo7.vledge, O*f' \\' '1Io ii$ the person :tmost likely to be 11j*ect to the terms !!.nuller li\bitb it \\"as licensed to GEH.
(7) The procedttte for approrJ'a] of e:x:tentd release o.f:!31]Cl!J a doam11em cypically requires. re\riev,;
hy the staff manager,. project o1anag*er.,. pr.il.ldpa]. sdmtis1, or otber equivfilllent authority for technical coute.nt, coo1petiti.ve effect, aJn.dl deltenuimtio.ul! of tbe :accu:rdlcy of the proprietary d.esigrt.'ltion. Disdosures. outside GEH Me li:nnted to regrdato:ry bodies,. ctlSton'lers., and potential custou1ers, and their agents:, supphers,,. and ]icensees, and. others; 1.1.r:ith a legjtir.nate nred for tbe :infoorJatiou, ;;u"JJdl. tbe111 mdy* in a.oco1r&111.ee 't'ith .appropriate regu:btOI)"
provi"ii011.S or propridary o*r C(JIJ.mdenl!ia]ity agJ"eemal'fs..
(8:) The information. .ideutified in p;n-agraplt (1). alttov'e, is. classified as prOJ.."'rietary because it coiJ.ltailrJ:s detaill.ed GEH methodo*]ogy for then1t.1l pmver optmuzation. fer GEH. Boiling \\later Reacto.tr"S (B1Jl:.s). De\<elopn1e11t of the:se 1111e1hods, ted:it21li!qtues, md. iin.1thr.l11.1tion aJJd their application for the *de.sigu, :mc*difkat.ion, :.u:nd a:nalys;es. nlftoo:d.o]ogies and processes \Vas a.chleved at fill. significant cost tJO GEH.
TI1e devektpluent of the e"'.',ilua.tioo pro;cesse:s aloug \li.tb the .iin.terpretation and application o:f the analytical results is d.e1ni:r...*ed fton:a the: exten:liiire experience ami infomJ;atimt data1%.tses.
that constitute a majo:r GEH fi!lsset (9') Public disdostl!e of the mftion. :smght to tl:te '"!ll.tiifllibeld is J:ilrely *to cause subs1atltial lL1rn1 to GEH."s c*run;petitive position. a11'ld for<<:lose or reduce t]le a\ra.illab!i.lil!y of profit making oppo:trtuw.ties The imbm1.1tiou. is part of GEH's cmnpreballs.i,*e B\VR safety a1!1d teclmology base, and its *COllliDlertial value ate1ms. berooo the orig[m] de\i"e1opm.ent cost.
The value of tbe technology batse goe:s beyooo the arens:ii:v..-e ph)"S.ical d.1taJ.base and al:la]ytical Jnetllodlology amlld. ii:nr:]udles del<11elOJ:.t of tbe a:pertise to deten:Wne a11d apply tlre appropriate e\'"ii!J]uatiowl process. Iu a('fdit:i.OIIll,. tb tecbl!ll01loror lttitse i11elludes. tbe value derived ftmn pro,l];dfng :.Uttdyses done 1i.lliitb NRC-apprc;vro n:tetl1odls.
The research, dei.--elopn1!e3lffi', engfueermg, aa_';jjly1lica1 .a111d NRC rer;ie'l.v costs cwnprise a substantial investlnent of 1lime allii IDfflooey by GEH.. The precise \'allue of the exJ:.-edis.e to de\ise an e\rab.k.ttioo process; am apply the coffifct analytical metroodolog;r is difficult to quantify, but it deru-ly is sliiltt6ta.1llfial GEH.'s competiitive advantage: will be 1o.st if its coo1petitors are able to use the rest.lllfs, of the GEH experimce to nmn1alize or \reriiy theitj LAR H17-03 LR-N17-0170 f3E-Hitaehi Nuclear Energy .:\.llnE"ricas LLC own pro*eess o:rr if they are able to daim an eqtti'1;'31ent lU1de:rstanding by dlen10$ll:ITatiug tllat they c.an arrive at the san1e or simillar conch:nsions.
TI1e ..ralue of this infom7tafin to GEH \1im1ld 'be lost if the information *1vere d.isdos.ed to the public. *!akU1g such mt'or:m;atin a*vailable to cou1petitors ,..rithout th.cir ha\<ing b..aen ret}nired to undertake a snmla:r e'Pf::[I)C1itll!re of :rresot:w:es \\Uuldl tu.Uairly pro\;*ide con1petiars
\Vith a \"'lilrldfall, and depriit<e GEH offbe oppo:rrnmty to exercise its cotnpetitiit<e .actva:ntag.e to seek an adeqtate :returu on. its large m1lesm1ent m de"'.telopin,g and obttairung these vet r*aluable atwytkal tools.
I dedare u.n.der penalty ofperjt1rJr tl!lat the fo:regomg :is tn11e and correct
.lisa K.. Scmd1Jieiu Senioc Project :*Ianag:er. NP'PlSenkes Lice.nswg RegulatOI)" Affam GE-II:itachi Nt1dear Energy lU!rrica.s LLC 3901 Castle Ha*}ifle Road
\liln'ringto(£1, NC 28401 I.isa..Scmthlem(@ge.coot