ML072010364

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC Report GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1, Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Fatigue Analysis.
ML072010364
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/30/2007
From:
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, General Electric Co
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
DRF 0000-0061-0582, PLA-6237 GE-NE-0000-0002-8817-01-NP-R1
Download: ML072010364 (107)
v • d • e


Text

Enclosure 2 to PLA-6237 GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC Report

  1. GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1 Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Fatigue Analysis June 2006 (Non-Proprietary)

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Nuclear Americas General .Electric Company 6705 Vallecitos aoej, Sunol CA 94586

.Non ProprietaryVersion GE-NE-0000-006 I -0595-NP-Ri DRF 0000-0061-0582

..Class I June 2007 Engineering Report Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Fatigue Analysis

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE This is a non-proprietary.version of the document GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-P-RI, which has the proprietary information removed. Portions of the document that have been removed are indicated by an open and closed double brackets as shown here (( )).

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully The only undertakings of the GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas (GHNEA) respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between the company receiving this document and GHNEA. Nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the applicable contract. The use of this information by anyone other than a customer authorized by GHNEA to have this document, or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized. With respect to any unauthorized use, GHNEA makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy or usefulness of the information contained in this~document, or that its use may not infringe privately owned rights ii

GE-NE-O000-0061-0595-NP-Ri1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION REVISION

SUMMARY

Rev Required Changes to Achieve Revision 0 None' 1 Section 1 Updated Executive Summary to indicate this revision

'update purpose.

Section 2 Expanded discussion on background history Section 4.1 Added plate mismatch weld factorsto criteria discussion Section 6.2 Added discussion describing relationship between Maximum and Nominal stresses ' and structural uncertainty. Moved table 6.1 to section 6.3.

Section 6.3 Section replaced with new section. Table 6.1 updated to include information from RO Table 7.1 for closer reviews of component stresses. Added columns for inclusion of weld factors and resulting stress using weld factors for nominal and maximum stresses Section 6.3.1 Renumbered to section 6.5 and expanded discussion for stress evaluation in the dryer skirt Section 6.3.2 Renumbered section to 6.4 and expanded section to include

.Outer Vane Bank End Plates Section 7 Paragraph removed and table 7.1 deleted Section 7.1 Added new section Section 7.2 Added new section Sections 7.2.1 through 7.2. 7 Added new sections Section 8.2 Tables 8.2 and 8.3 updated Section 9 Updated conclusions Figure 5-14 Revised to show correct constraint locations (lugs)

Figures 6-2 to 6-21 Revised to show revised analysis results Figure 6-22 Added new Figure Figures 6-23 and 6-24 Renumbered, previously Figures 6-27 and 6-28 respectively Figures 6-25 and 6-26 Added new Figure Figures 6-27 Renumbered, previously Figures 6-22_and 6-23 respectively Figures 6-32 and 6-33 Added new Figure Figures .7-1 to 7-8 Added new.Figure III

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R I NON PROPRIETARY VERSION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page REVISION

SUMMARY

................................... ............................ ........... ... 1ii ACRONYM S AND ABBREVIATION S .................................................................................. x

1. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

... I1

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................. 2
3. MATERIAL PROPERTIES ............ .................................. .3
4. DE SIGN CRIT ER IA ..... ......... .............................................. ................. ..................... 4 4.1 Fatigue Criteria. ....................................

...... ........ 4 4.2 ASME Code Criteria for Load Combinations ................... ................................. 5

5. DRYER FEA MODEL AND APPLIED LOADS............................................................. 6 5.1 Full Dryer Shell Finite Element Model... .........................-.. ....... ...... 66 5.2 Dynamic Pressure Loads ..................................... ......7,7 5.3 Spatial Distribution, Time History and Frequency Contents of the Loads ............ 7 5.4 )) and Extrapolation to EPU................... 8
6. VIBRATION ANALYSIS AND PREDICTED COMPONENT STRESSES... ................... 9 6.1 Vibration Analysis Approach ....... ..................... ...... 9 6.2 Maximum Stresses, Structural Uncertainty and Design Criteria............. 9 6.3 Calculated Component Maximum Stress Intensities ............. .......................... 100 6.4 )) Stress Investigations ........................... 12, 6.5 stress Prediction .................................

S. 13

7. FATIGUE PREDICTION AT EPU CONDITIONS ...................................... I....................... 15 7.1 . Fatigue Calculation with the Refined Stresses ................................................ 15 7,2 Frequency Content of the Structural Response............................................ 15 7.2.1 Stress Frequency Contents of(( ................................... 15 7.2.2 Stress Frequency Contents of ((........................................ 15 7.2.3 Stress Frequency Contents of (( ] ............ ............ 16 7.2.4 Stress Frequency Contents of (( .))..................... 16
8. ASME LOAD COMBINATIONS ................................................................. 18 8.1 A SME Code Load Com binations .................................................................. 1.....

i8 iv

GE-NE-000O-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 8.2 ASME Code Load Case Stress Results ........................ ................................ 20

9. CON CLU SION S ............................................................................................................. 23
10. REFER EN CE S ......................................................... ................................................ 24 V

GE-NE-0000-006 1-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION List of Tables Table 3-1 Properties of SS304 [Reference 2] ......................................... 3 Table 4-1 ASME Code Stress Limits [Reference 3] .................................................... 5 Table 6-1 Maximum Stress Intensity from Vibration Solution under I I 3%OLTP Loads ............ I Table 7-1 SSES Dryer Component Fatigue Margin under EPU Condition ....... *..................... 17 Table 8-1 Susquehanna Units I & 2 Steam Dryer Load Combinations ................... 18 Table 8-2 EPU ASME Results for Normal and Upset Conditions: Maximum Stresses ............ 21 Table 8-3 EPU ASME Results for Emergency and Faulted Conditions: Maximum Stresses.., ....22 V1

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION List of Figures Figure 5-1 Thickness Increase of Susquehanna Replacement Dryer ............................... 25 Figure 5-2 Susquehanna Dryer Finite Element M odel ....... .............................................. 26 Figure 5-3 Section of Water Element ............ ................ ..... ..... 27 Figure 5-4 Dryer Top Plate.... ......................................... ... 28 Figure 5-5 Trough Thin and Thick Section .......................... .... ........ 29 Figure 5-6 Bank Top Plate and Top Side Plate .......................... ........................ .................. 30 Figure 5-7 Inner and Outer Vane Bank Plates.................................................... 31 Figure 5-8 Thin and Thick End Plate...:.................................................... .................... 32 Figure 5-9 Inner Hood and Outer Hood .................................... 33 Figure 5-10 Hood Support ................. .............................................

. 34 Figure 5-11 Thick and Thin Inlet End Plates ................................. 35 Figure 5-12 Drain Pipes, Drain Channels, Skirt and Lower Skirt Ring................ 36 Figure 5-13 Vane Banks with Perforated Plates ................... ................ . .... 37 Figure 5-14 Susquehanna Dryer FE Model Boundary Conditions...................................... 38.

Figure 5-15 Vane Bundle-Trough Interface Boundary Conditions .......................................... 39 Figure 5-16 Pressure Distribution on 900 Hood at LS547, 113% OLTP Nominal ............ 40 Figure 5-17 Pressure Distribution on 270' Hood at LS666, 1.13% OLTP Nominal ...... ........... 41 Figure 5-18 Peak Pressure Time History, 900 Hood ............................ 42 Figure 5-19 Peak Pressure Time History, 270' Hood. ........................... 43 Figure 5-20 Peak Pressure PSD, 90 H ood ............................................. .................................. 44 Figure 5-21 Peak Pressure PSD, 2700 Hood ............................. .... 45 Figure 6-1 Rayleigh D am ping Curve ...................................................................... .......... 46 Figure 6-2 Dryer Base Plate Max. Stress intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal .......

............. 47 Figure 6-3 Trough Thin Section Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal.................. 48 Figure 6-4 Trough Thick Section Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal .............. 49 Figure 6-5 Bank Top Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal................... 50 Figure 6-6 Bank Top Side Plates Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal............. 51 Figure 6-7 Outer Vane Bank End Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113%OLTP Nominal............... 52 vii

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-8 Inner Vane Bank End Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ............53 Figure 6-9 Thin End Plates Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ................... ............. 54 Figure 6-10 Thick End Plates Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ................. 55 Figure 6-11 Inner Hood Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ...... ............

.... 56 Figure 6-12 Outer Hood Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ............................. 57 Figure 6-13 Hood Support Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal .............. 58 Figure 6-14 Inlet End Plate (Thin) Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ................ 59 Figure 6-15 Inlet End Plate (Thick) Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ............. 60 Figure 6-16 Skirt Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal .......................................... 61 Figure 6-17 Support Ring Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ....... ....................... 62 Figure 6-18 Drain Pipe Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ....................... ........... 63 Figure 6-19 Drain Channel Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ......... :................. 64 Figure 6-20 Lower Skirt Ring Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ........ ..................... 65 Figure 6-21 Cover Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal ........ .............. 66 Figure 6-22 Outer Vane Bank End Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Plus7.5...........67 Figure 6-23 Inner Vane Bank End Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 1.13% OLTP Minus5 ...... 68 Figure 6-24 Sketch of the Tie rod and Inner Vane Bank End Plate Joint .............................. 69 Figure 6-25 Outer Vane Bank End Plate Stress Away from Tie-Rod Joint, 113% OLTP PIus570 Figure 6-26 Inner Vane Bank End Plate Stress Away from Tie-Rod Joint, 113% OLTP Minus2.5 ...................................................................................................... .......... ..... 71 Figure 6-27 Skirt Stress Intensity, 11.3% OLTP Minus7.5 .............................. 72 Figure 6-28 (( .].................. 73 Figure 6-29 (( ] ..... ...... .......I,...................... . 74 Figure 6-30 (( .................. 75 Figure 6-31 (( ]............... 76 Figure 6-32 (( ........... 77 Figure 6-33 (( .................. 78 Figure 7-1 Trough Thin Section Stress Time History, 113% OLTP Nominal .................... 79 Figure 7-2 Trough Thin Section Stress Waterfall Plot (top) and PSD (bottom), 113% OLTP N om inal ...................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 7-3 Thick.End Plate Stress Time History, 113% OLTP Plus5 ........................... ........ 81 Figure 7-4 Thick End Plate Stress Waterfall Plot (top) and PSD (bottom), 113% OLTP Plus582 VIII

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 7-5 Inner Hood Stress Time History, 113% OLTP Minus5 .................. 83 Figure 7-6 Inner Hood Stress Waterfall Plot (top) and PSD (bottom), 113% OLTP Minus5 ....84 Figure 7-7 Skirt Stress Time History, 113% OLTP Minus2.5 ............................................. 85 Figure 7-8 Skirt Stress Waterfall Plot (top) and PSD (bottom), 113% OLTP Minus2.5 ........ 86 ix

GE-NE-O000-0061-0595-NP-R1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Item> Short Form Description I ACM Acoustic Circuit Model 2 ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 3 BWR Boiling Water Reactor 4 CLTP Currently Licensed Thermal Power 5 EPU Extended Power Uprate 6 FEA Finite Element Analysis 7 FEM Finite Element Model

.8 FFT Fast Fourier Transform 9 FIV Flow Induced Vibration 10 GE General Electric 11 GENE General Electric Nuclear Energy 12 Hz Hertz 13 IGSCC lntergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking 14 Mlbm/hr Millions pounds mass per hour 15 MS Main Steam 16 MSL Main Steam Line 17 MWI Megawatt Thermal

18 NA Not Applicable 19 'NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 OBE Operational Basis Earthquake 21 OLTP Original Licensed Thermal Power 22 Pb Primary Bending Stress 23 Pm Primary Membrane Stress

.24 PPL Pennsylvania Power & Light 25 PSD Power Spectral Density 26 psi Pounds per square inch 27 Ref. Reference 28 RMS Root-Mean-Squared .

29 RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel 30 SCF Stress Concentration Factor 31 SRSS Square Root Sum of Squares 32 SRV Safety Relief Valve 33 SSES Susquehanna Steam Electric Station x

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

1. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report documents the finite element stress analyses of the proposed replacement steam dryer for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES). The focus of these analyses is to predict the replacement dryer's susceptibility to fatigue under flow induced vibration (FIV) and mechanically induced vibration loads during normal operation at Extended Power Uprate (EPU) power levels. A detailed finite element model (FEM) is used to perform the structural dynamic analyses. The results of these analyses are used to assess dryer component stresses versus fatigue and ASME design criteria under the operating conditions. This report revision has been updated to show the effects of applying the boundary condition at the correct mounting lug locations.

The fatigue evaluations are performed at steam flow closely matching 113% of the Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) flow conditions. The applied pressure loads were developed by Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (CDI) based on in-plant steam line pressure measurements taken during the spring of 2006. The 113% OLTP analysis is used as the basis for extrapolating the dryer stress to full EPU conditions by using the benchmark study and scaling law previously developed for Susquehanna dryer..

The fatigue evaluation indicates that at full EPU conditions, all dryer components meet the fatigue acceptance criteria with adequate or high margins. The ASME load combination analysis results indicate that the stresses for all structural components are under the allowable ASME Code limits at EPU operating conditions.

Therefore, the fatigue evaluation and ASME load combination analysis demonstrates the acceptability of the Susquehanna replacement steam dryer design at EPU operating conditions.

I

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The original Susquehanna steam dryer's structural responses were analyzed for component fatigue evaluation at Extended Power Uprate (EPU) conditions [Reference I]. The analyses used the steam dryer's finite element model to calculate its transient dynamic responses. The pressure loads used in the analyses were developed by Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (CDI) based on in-plant steam line pressure measurements taken at various power levels during the spring of 2006, which included the Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP), the Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP), and the 113% OLTP. In addition to these provided nominal loads, the time scale of the loads was stretched by plus and minus 10% respectively to create frequency shift in loads, in order to capture structural uncertainty. In all these transient response analyses, Rayleigh damping equivalent to 1% damping ratio was applied. The maximum stresses of dryer components were searched from all the solutions over the calculated response time histories. Based on a benchmarking analysis of 1985 strain gauge data, a scaling factor was applied to these stresses to include both flow and mechanically induced vibration. Subsequently, a scale factor is then used to extrapolate the stress results of 113% OLTP to EPU conditions, and the resulting stress values were used for component fatigue evaluation.

The results of the analyses on the original Susquehanna dryer indicate that the several dryer components were susceptible for fatigue failure under EPU operating condition.

After a comprehensive review of alternative dryer modifications and a review of the operational history of previous dryer modifications, a replacement dryer configuration was proposed to sustain the vibration environment at EPU condition. This replacement dryer concept ((

)) intending to reduce component stresses and increase fatigue margin. The corresponding structural analyses are performed to predict the dryer's structural responses to the vibration loads and ASME load combination, and to assure the dryer meets the design criteria.

This report documents the fatigue analysis and ASME load combinations of this Susquehanna replacement dryer, and summarizes the predicted component stresses and fatigue margins.

2

GE-NE-0000-006 1-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

3. MATERIAL PROPERTIES The .dryer assembly is manufactured from Type 304 conforming to the requirements of the material and fabrication specifications. ASME material properties are used

[Reference 2]. The applicable properties are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Properties of SS304 [Reference 2]

Room temperature Operating temperature Material I property 700F 5450 F SS304 Sy, Yield strength, psi 30,000 17,000 S., Ultimate strength, psi 75,000 63,500, E, Elastic modulus, psi 28,300,000 26V430,000 3

GE-NE-O000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

4. DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1 Fatigue Criteria The steam dryer fatigue evaluation consists of calculating the alternating stress intensity from FIV and mechanical induced vibration loading at all locations in the steam dryer structure and comparing it with the allowable design fatigue threshold stress intensity. The recommended fatigue threshold stress intensity considered is the ASME Code Curve C value of 13,600 psi. Stresses below the ASME Code Curve-C value are assumed to be below the level required to initiate a fatigue crack. The fatigue design criteria for the steam dryer is based on Figure 1-9.2.2 of ASME Section III [Reference 3], which provides the fatigue threshold values for use in the evaluation of stainless steels. ((

))

4

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 4.2 ASME Code Criteria for Load Combinations The ASME Code stress limits used in the evaluation of the Susquehanna dryer are listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 ASME Code Stress Limits [Reference 3]

Stress Core Support Structures Stress limits Service level category (NG)

Stress Limit (ksi)

Service levels A & B Pm Sm 16.9 Pm + Pb 1.5 Sm 25.35 Service levels C Pm. 1 5 Sm 25.35 Pm +Pb 2.25 Sm 38.03

.Service level D Pm Min (.7S, or 2.4 Sm) 40.56 Pm + Pb 1.5 (Pm Allowable) 60.84 Legend:

Pm General primary membrane stress intensity.

Pb: Primary bending stress intensity S,, ASME Code stress intensity limit Ultimate strength Table 4-1 Note: Service Level Limits for Service Levels A, B and C are according, to NG-3221 and Appendix F Paragraph F-1.331 for Level D. Upset condition stress limits are increased by 10% above the limits shown in this table per NG-3223 (a).

5

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

5. DRYER FEA MODEL AND APPLIED LOADS 5.1 Full Dryer Shell Finite Element Model The proposed replacement dryer configuration only ((

6

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 5.2 Dynamic Pressure Loads The replacement steam dryer FIV response analysis uses loads developed by CDI, which are based upon steam flow conditions representative of 113% OLTP. The loads were derived from in-plant pressure measurements taken on the reactor main steam lines in 2006. ((

.))

The loading time history developed with the CDI acoustic circuit model is used as the nominal load case for the replacement steam dryer FIV analysis. In order to capture structural uncertainties, the time scale of this nominal load is stretched or compressed to create load cases with frequency shifts. In this replacement dryer fatigue analysis, a total of 9 load cases are created and analyzed. These 9 load cases include the nominal, minuslO (-10%), minus7.5 (-7.5%), minus5 (-5%), minus2.5 (-2.5%), plus2.5

(+2.5%), plus5 (+5%), plus7.5 (+7.5%), and plus 10 (+10%) load cases.

5.3 Spatial Distribution, Time History and Frequency Contents of the Loads

))..The spatial distributions of pressure on the dryer at these two instances are shown in' Figures 5-16 and 5-17, respectively. The spatial distribution shows that the high pressure occurs near the MSL locations.

The pressure time histories, measured at the two maximum pressure locations on the outer hoods, are shown in Figures 5-18 and 5-19. ((

)) Therefore, a pressure power spectral density (PSD) evaluation is used to describe the frequency contents of the pressure time history. The results of the PSD evaluation for the time histories of Figures 5-18 and 5-19 are shown in Figures 5-20 and 5-21, respectively. ((

1]

7

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 5.4 (( ))and Extrapolation to EPU In Reference 1, benchmark comparisons were made between the Susquehanna FEA predictions and in-plant measurements taken during testing in 1985. The benchmark study included comparisons between predicted and measured pressures at the pressure drum and outer hood locations. A more detailed comparison was also made of the predicted strains versus measured strains at specific strain gauge locations. It was concluded that Susquehanna FEA results were under predicted ((

)) the FEA stress results to match the testing measurements. This approach (( 1]

will be used in the replacement Susquehanna dryer fatigue evaluation.

The FIV analysis for the replacement steam dryer is performed with the loading developed from the Susquehanna in-plant main steam line pressure measurements for power level of 113% OLTP (3721 MWt). The results of the finite element analyses must then be extrapolated to determine the stresses on the dryer at EPU conditions.

Dynamic operating measurements are available from three sources for determining the extrapolation to EPU. Reference I documented the process of extrapolating the results of 113% OLTP to EPU conditions, which included the use of three data sources: The 1985 in-plant instrumented dryer measurements [Reference 5], the MSL pressure measurements [Reference 7], and SSES-specific scale model testing

[Reference 8].

))~

8

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri, NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

6. VIBRATION ANALYSIS AND PREDICTED COMPONENT STRESSES 6.1 Vibration Analysis Approach The structural responses of the replacement steam dryer [ *

)) Rayleigh damping is used in all of the analyses. Rayleigh damping coefficients ((

6.2 Maximum Stresses, Structural Uncertainty and Design Criteria Following each of the transient solutions, an ANSYS macro is used to search through, all time steps on every component to extract the maximum stress intensity and the corresponding time and location. The element stress values from the shell element top, bottom, and middle surfaces are surveyed. The maximum values of stress intensity on:

the shell top or bottom are used for fatigue evaluation, and the maximum values of stress intensity on the middle surface are used in the ASME load combination.

Of the 9 load cases, the maximum stress intensity of nominal load is to be used for fatigue margin calculation using the following formula:

13600 -

Fatigue Margin -

Stress. SF

((

The difference between the nominal case and the maximum stress of all 9 cases, with weld factors included, is used to evaluate structural uncertainty using the following formula:

9

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Maximum Stress Structural Uncertainty M -1 Nominal Stress The acceptance criteria requires each dryer component to have a fatigue margin greater than its structural uncertainty.

The above methods evaluate the design by nominal load case and take the structural uncertainty into account at the same time. It should be pointed out that if one desires to measure margin by the absolute maximum stress, the relation with the margin by nominal stress and structural uncertainty is as follows: Let M.r be the margin by maximum stress, MNo,, be the margin by nominal stress, and *u be the structural uncertainty, then 6.3 Calculated Component Maximum Stress Intensities Table 6-1 summarizes the component stresses from the 9 load cases. It also shows the weld factors for the, location which produced the highest stress in each dryer component for both the nominal and maximum cases. "Structural Uncertainty" is calculated as described in the previous section. Table 6.1 represents a combination of Tables 6.1 and 7.1 in the previous revision of this report. The dryer component stress plots for the nominal case are shown in Figures 6-2 through 6-2 1.

((1

))

10

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R I NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 6-1 Maximum Stress Intensity from Vibration Solution under 113%OLTP Loads I]

11

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 6.4 (( )) Stress Investigations The. maximum stresses surveyed directly from the FIV responses ((

)) Figures 6-22 and 6-23 show the corresponding stress intensity plots. ((

12

GE-NE-4000-0061-0595-NP-Rl1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 6.5 (( )) Stress Prediction

((I At these locations, the dryer FE model has introduced simplifications in order to capture the dynamic behavior without complicating the FE model. ((

13

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 14

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

7. FATIGUE PREDICTION AT EPU CONDITIONS 7.1 Fatigue Calculation with the Refined Stresses Using the vibration response ((

] I,the Susquehanna replacement dryer's component stresses can now be used for fatigue evaluation.

Table 7-1 summarizes the component stresses ((

)) The fatigue margins are then calculated in comparison to the structural uncertainties. The results indicate that all components meet the design criteria that requests fatigue margin greater than the structural uncertainty.

Therefore, this replacement dryer -concept is structurally adequate to accommodate the vibration environment at EPU condition. This demonstrates the feasibility of the replacement dryer concept for sustained FIV loading.

7.2 Frequency Content of the Structural Response In order to understand the structural response in relation to the excitation forces, stress frequency contents are analyzed ((

7.2.1 Stress Frequency Contents of ((

((I I]

7.2.2 Stress Frequency Contents of ((  ?))

15

.15

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 7.2.3 Stress Frequency Contents of ((

7.2.4 Stress Frequency Contents of (( 1]

16

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 7-1.SSES Dryer Component Fatigue Margin under EPU Condition 17 17-

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

8. ASME LOAD COMBINATIONS The Susquehanna steam dryer was analyzed for the ASME Code load combinations (primary stresses) shown in Table- 8-1. The acceptance criteria used for -these evaluations are specified in Section 4.2 and are the same as those Used for safety related components. The FIV stresses, where applicable, were added from the existing results obtained for the EPU condition.

8.1 ASME Code Load Combinations Susquehanna is a "New Loads" plant. The resulting load combinations for each of the service conditions are discussed in Reference 9 and summarized in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1 Susquehanna Units 1 & 2 Steam Dryer Load Combinations A-I Normal .DW+ LPN.+ FIVN B-]L Upset DW + APN + TSV1 + FIVN B-2 _ Upset DW+APN+TSV 2 B-32 Upset DW + APu + SRV +FIVu 4 IUpset DW+APN +OBE+FIVN B-5 Upset DW +,6Pu + [SRV 2 + OBE2 ] 5 + F!Vu C--1 Emergency DW +LPE + SRVADs+FIVN'

-1 Faulted DW+ 6PFI + [SRVADS2 +SSE2 ]0 5.

D

-2 Faulted DW + LPN + [AC1 2+ SSE 2 + FIVN2 ]°,s D-3 Faulted DW + 6PF2 D-4 Faulted DW + LPN + AC 2 + FIVN D-5 Faulted DW + LPu + [SRV2 + SSE 2] 0o5 + FIVu Definition of Load Acronyms:

ACI = Acoustic load due to Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) outside containment, at the Rated Power and Core Flow (Hi-Power) Condition.

18

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION AC2 = Acoustic load. due to Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) outside containment, at the Low Power/High Core Flow (Interlock) Condition.

AP = Annulus Pressurization Loads CHUG = Chugging (LOCA) Loads, Greater of symmetric 'or .asymmetric chugging loads.

DW = Metal Weight + Water Weight.

APn = Differential 'static' Pressure Load during Normal Operation.

Apu = Differential 'static' Pressure Load during Upset Operation (including the effects of stuck-open relief Valve (SORV) condition)..

APE = Differential 'static' Pressure Load during Emergency, Operation (inadvertent actuation of ADS).

APF1 = Differential Pressure Load in the Faulted condition, due to Main Steam Line Break outside containment at the Rated Power and Core Flow (Hi-Power) condition.

APF2 = Differential Pressure Load in the Faulted condition, due to Main Steam Line Break outside containment at the Low Power/High Core Flow (Interlock) Condition.

FIVN = Flow Induced Vibration Load during Normal Operation.

FIVu. = Flow Induced Vibration Load during Upset Operation.

JR = Jet Reaction Loads' OBE Operating Basis Earthquake.

SSE = Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

SRV. Safety Relief Valve Loads (Greater of all SRV or SRV-Asymmetric)

SRVADS= SRV Loads caused by the "automatic depressurization system" TSVI = The Initial Acoustic Component of the Turbine Stop Valve (TSV)

Closure Load (Inward load on the outermost hood closest to the nozzle).

TSV2 = The Flow Impingement Component (following the Acoustic phase) of the TSV Closure Load (Inward load on the outermost hood closest to the nozzle).

19

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 8.2 ASME Code Load Case Stress Results The stresses reported from the ANSYS analysis runs are maximum stresses and not general primary membrane or membrane plus bending stresses. .Comparing the maximum stresses (rather than primary stresses as it is required by the Code) against the ASME limits (Table 4-1) is a very conservative way of structural components evaluation. However, "as it is shown in- Table 8-2 and Table 8-3, this conservative qualification has been successful for all the components and load combinations. Table 8-2 and Table 8-3 list the components maximum stresses obtained from the ANSYS analysis.

Table 8-2 and Table 8-3 summarize the ASME load combination analysis results and indicate that the stresses for all structural components are under the allowable ASME Code limits at EPU operating conditions.

20

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R i NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 8-2 EPU ASME Results for Normal and Upset Conditions: Maximum Stresses 21

GE-NE-OOOO-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 8-3 EPU-ASME Results for Emergency and Faulted Conditions: Maximum Stresses

((

1]

22

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Rl NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

9. CONCLUSIONS Finite element stress analyses were performed for the replacement Susquehanna steam dryer to predict dryer structural responses to the Flow Induced Vibration (FlV) and mechanically induced vibration loads under the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) condition and ASME load combination.

A detailed finite element model is used to perform the structural dynamic analyses.

The applied pressure loads were developed by Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (CDI) based on in-plant steam line pressure measurements taken at 113% OLTP power levels during the spring of 2006. The results are used as basis for extrapolating the dryer stresses to full EPU conditions.

The fatigue evaluation indicates that at full EPU conditions, all dryer components meet the fatigue acceptance. criteria with adequate or high margins, and the replacement Susquehanna design is structurally, adequate to accommodate the vibration environment at EPU condition.

The ASME load combination analysis results indicate that the stresses. for all structural components are under the allowable ASME Code. limits at EPU operating conditions.

Therefore, the fatigue evaluation and ASME load combination analysis demonstrates the acceptability of the Susquehanna replacement steam dryer design.

23

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

10. REFERENCES

[1] Susquehanna Steam Dryer Fatigue Analysis, GENE 0000-0057-4166-RI, September 2006

[2] ASME B&PV Code, Section 11, Part D-Properties, 1995.

[3] ASME B&PV Code,Section III, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda.

[4] C.D.I. Report No. 06-22 Rev. 0, "Hydrodynamic Loads at OLTP, CLTP, and 113% OITP on Susquehanna Unit 1 Steam Dryer to 250 Hz," September 2006

[5] MDE #199-0985, "Susquehanna - 1 Steam Dryer Vibration Steady State and Transient Response," October 19.85.

[6] Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1&2 Extended Power Uprate, GENE 0038-3561 RO, June 2005

[7] Horvath, R., and Trubelja, M.; SIA Calculation Package: Susquehanna Unit 1 Main Steam Line Strain Gage Data Reduction; File No. SSES-23Q-302, Project No. SSES-23Q.

[8] Neiheisel, M., Test Report # I Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit I Scale Model Test. GENE-0000-0054-2552. May 2006.

[9] "Susquehanna Units I and 2 Steam Dryer Load Combinations", GENE 0000-.

0051-3345, April 2006 24

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5-1 Thickness Increase of Susquehanna Replacement Dryer 25

GE-NE-O000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[t 11 Figure 5-2 Susquehanna Dryer Finite Element Model 26

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Rl NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

1]

Figure 5-3 Section of Water Element 27

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5-4 Dryer Top Plate, 28

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 Figure 5-5 Trough Thin and Thick Section 29

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 5-6 Bank Top Plate and Top Side Plate 30

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri.

NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure, 5-7 Inner and Outer Vane Bank Plates 31

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

I]

Figure 5-8 Thin and Thick End Plate 32

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[r 1]

Figure 5-9 Inner Hood and Outer Hood 33

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 5-10 Hood Support 34

GE-NE-O000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5-11 Thick and Thin Inlet End Plates 35

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R I NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 5-12 Drain Pipes, Drain Channels, Skirt and Lower Skirt Ring 36

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[II 11 Figure 5-13 Vane Banks with Perforated Plates 37

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5-14 Susquehanna Dryer FE Model Boundary Conditions 38

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 Figure 5-15 Vane Bundle-Trough Interface Boundary Conditions 39

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5-16 Pressure Distribution on 900 Hood at LS547, 113% OLTP Nominal 40

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5-17 Pressure Distribution on 2700 Hood at LS666, 113% OLTP Nominal 41

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 5-18 Peak Pressure Time History, 900 Hood 42

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5-19 Peak Pressure Time History, 2700 Hood 43

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((I 1]

Figure 5-20 Peak Pressure PSD, 900 Hood 44

,GE-NE-0000-0061.-0595-NP-Ri f4A$PROPRIETARY VERsION

((

Figure 5-21 Peak Pressure PSD, 2700 Hood 45

GEt-NE0000-006 1ý.595LNPýR I NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

1]

Figure 6-1 Rayleigh Damping Curve 46

'GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R 1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

Figure 6-2 Dryer Base Plate Max.: Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 47

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 6-3 Trough Thin Section Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 48

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri.

NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 6-4 Trough Thick Section Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 49

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[1 Bank Top Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 1]

Figure 6-5 50

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

Figure 6-6 Bank Top Side Plates Max. Stress Intensity, 113%:OLTP Nominal 51

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION F]

Figure 6-7 Outer Vane Bank End Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113%OLTP Nominal 52

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1[

11 Figure 6-8 Inner Vane Bank End Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 53

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 6-9 Thin End Plates Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 54

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

1]

Figure 6-10 Thick End Plates Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal.

55

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

.1]1 Figure 6-11 Inner Hood Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 56

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[1 Figure 6-12 Outer Hood Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 57

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-13 Hood Support Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 58

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-14 Inlet End Plate (Thin) Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal.'

59

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-15 Inlet End Plate (Thick) Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 60

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

Figure 6-16 Skirt Max.. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 61

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 6-17 Support Ring Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 62

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-18 Drain Pipe Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 63

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

.((

Figure 6-19 Drain Channel Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 64

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI.

NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-20 Lower Skirt Ring Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 65

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

-]

Figure 6-21 Cover Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Nominal 66

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R 1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-22 Outer Vane Bank End Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Plus7.5 67

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[1

  • I))

Figure 6-23 Inner Vane Bank End Plate Max. Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Minus5 68

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION l[E Figure 6-24 Sketch of the Tie rod and Inner Vane Bank End Plate Joint 69

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION, 1))

Figure 6-25 Outer Vane Bank End Plate Stress Away from Tie-Rod Joint, 113%

OLTP Plus5 70

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-26 Inner Vane Bank End Plate Stress Away from Tie-Rod Joint, 113%

OLTP Minus2.5 71

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-27 Skirt Stress Intensity, 113% OLTP Minus7.5 72

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 6-28 1]1 73

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-29 1]

74

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R I NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-30 (( 1]

75

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[Fi Figure 6-31 ((I 76

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R 1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

.11 Figure 6-32 1]

77

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 6-33 78

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

Ti Trough Thin Section Stress Time History. 113% OLTP Nominal Figure 7-1 79

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-R1 NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((I Figure 7-2 Trough Thin Section Stress Waterfall Plot (top) and PSD (bottom),

113% OLTP Nominal 80

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 7-3 Thick End Plate Stress Time History, 113% OLTP PlusS 81

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

1]

Figure 7-4 Thick End Plate Stress Waterfall Plot (top) and PSD (bottom), 113%

OLTP Plus5 82

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[I Figure 7-5 Inner Hood Stress Time History, 113% OLTP Minus5 83

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

S-I))

Figure 7-6 Inner Hood Stress Waterfall Plot (top) and PSD (bottom), 113% OLTP Minus5 84

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-RI NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[1 1]

Figure 7-7 Skirt Stress Time History, 113% OLTP Minus2.5 85

GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-NP-Ri NON PROPRIETARY VERSION

[1

))

Figure 7-8 Skirt Stress Waterfall Plot (top) and PSD (bottom), 113% OLTP Minus2.5 86

Proprietary Information Enclosed Enclosure 3 to PLA-6237 Comparison Tables With "End-To-End" Uncertainties (Proprietary)

GHNEA PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Maximum "End-To-End" Stress Intensities From Table 1 Of PLA-6146 (dated 12/26/06)

Stress Wth Stress Weld Under Scaled Stress With Prediction To Full EndAtoEnd Maximum

-qfrgh EapIm SWFssW&h FPU 1w1=1 WF Fnrtnr [lnnortaintv Final Marnin Dryer Base Plate 1338 1. 2408 5226 60M0 6058 124%

Trough Thin Section 31M1 1 3151 6903 7938 8002 70%

Trough Thick Section 2583 1 2583 5605 6446 6497 109%

Bank Top Plates 2243 1 2243 4A67 5597 5642 141%

Bank Too Side Plates 2062 1A 2857 6264 7204 7262 87%

Outer Vane Bank End Plates 3186 1 3186 6914 7951 8014 70%

Inner Vane Bank End Plates 668 1.Z 1202 2609 3001 3025 350%

Thin End Plates 551 1.8 992 2152 2415 2495 445%

Thick End Plates 2647  !, 4765 10339 14890 14985 13%

Inner Hood 2125 1. 3W25 8300 9545 9622 41%

Outer Hoods 1190 1 2142 464M 5345 5385 152%

Hood Sunoorts 1139 1z, 2050 4449 5116 5157 164%

Inlet End Plates (Thin) 1242 1.8 2236 4851 5579 5624 142%

Inlet End Plate (Thicki 1326 I!A 1856 4025 4633 4670 191%

Skirt 2710 1 2710 58M1 6763 6847 100%

Dryer Support Ring 704 1.8 1267 2750 31 313158 327%

DrainPie 965  !., 1137 3769 4335 4369 211%

Drain Channel 2461 1.8 4430 9613 11055 111M3 22%

Lower Skirt Ring 2M5 1_8 513 11!3 1280 1290 954%

CoverPlate 925 18 1665 3613 4155 4185 225%

{. }]1

GHNEA PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Revised Maximum Stress Intensities ((With Corrected Sunnort Lua Location Sunnort Lua Location SktessWith Weld Under Stress With Maximum Factor Stress With To Full End to End FPediction StreLs (WF* WF Factor EPU Uncertaintv Final Maroin Dryer Base Plate 137 1,8 2478 53M3 6179 8228 118%

Trough Thin Section 281M 1.8 50=0 10980 12627 12728 7%

Trough Thick Section 2211 1 2211 4798 5518 5562 145%

Bank Too Plates 2582 1.4 3B15 7844 9021 9093 50%

Bank Too Side Plates 2389 1.4 3345 7258 8346 8413 62%

Outer Vane Bank End Plates 1443 18 2598 5638 6483 6535 108%

Inner Vane Bank End Plates 817 1.8 1140 2409 2770 2792 387%

Thin End Plates U3L 1.8 1144 2482 2855 2878 373%

Thick End Plates 2694 1.8 4849 10522 12101 12197 11%

Inner Hood 2480 1.8 4484 9687 11140 11229 21%

Outer Hoods 1484 1-8 2131 4M24 5318 5380 154%

Hood1137 o 1- 2047 4441 5107 5148 164%

Inlet End Plates (Thin) 1277 1.8 2298 4987 5735 5781 135%

Inlet End Plate (ThickW 1392 1a 2505 5436 6251 8301 116%

Skid 2339 1.8 4210 9138 10507 10591 28%

Dryer Suonort Ring 288 18 519 1128 1295 130l 942%

DrainPioe 959 1a8 172 3745 4307 4342 213%

Drain Channel 1987 18 3541 7883 8838 8908 53%

Lower Skirt Rirg 338 *18 609 1322 1520 1532 788%

Cover Plate 9471.8 1704 3898 4252 '428 211%

~))

Enclosure 4 to PLA-6237 Comparison Tables with "End-to-End" Uncertainties (Non-Proprietary)

Maximum "End-To-End" Stress Intensities From Table 1 Of PLA-6146 (dated 12/26/06) t 4 1 * + -4 f 4 4 * + 4 4 1 + 4 4-4 1 t + 4 +

t 1 +/- 4 +

I F + 4 4-F 4 4 F .4- 1 __________

4 4 4 F 4- 4 .4-

-F 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 F 4 4 4 4 4 F - 4 - 4 4 t F 4 4 4 4 4 f F 4 4 4 4 4

Revised Maximum Stress Intensities ((

+ + 4 4 4

+ i i4 + 4

+ t 4 4 4 I 1]

Enclosure 5 to PLA-6237 GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC Affidavit For Comparison Tables

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC AFFIDAVIT I, James F. Harrison, state as follows:

(1) I am Project Manager, Fuel Licensing, Regulatory Affairs, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC ("GHNEA"), have been delegated the function of reviewing the information described in paragraph (2) which is sought to be withheld, and have been authorized to apply for its withholding.

(2) The information sought to be withheld is contained in GHNEA letter, GE-SSES-AEP-329, GHNEA Proprietary Review of Maximum 'End-to-End' Stress Tables, PPL Letter PLA-6237, dated July 3, 2007. The proprietary information, contained in Enclosure 1 entitled, GHNEA ProprietaryReview of Maximum 'End-to-End' Stress Tables, PPL Letter PLA-6237, is delineated by a ((dotted underline inside double square brackets.3)). In each case, the superscript notation 3 refers to Paragraph (3) of this affidavit, which provides the basis for the proprietary determination.

(3) In making this application for withholding of proprietary information of which it is th~e.

owner or licensee, GHNEA relies upon the exemption from disclosure set forth in the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 USC Sec. 552(b)(4), and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 USC Sec. 1905, and NRC regulations 10 CFR 9.17(a)(4), and 2.390(a)(4) for "trade secrets" (Exemption 4). The material for which exemption from disclosure is here sought also qualify under the narrower definition of "trade secret", within the meanings assigned to those terms for purposes of FOIA Exemption 4 in, respectively, Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 975F2d871 (DC Cir. 1992), and Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704F2d1280 (DC Cir. 1983).

(4) Some examples of categories of information which fit into the definition of proprietary information are:

a. Information that discloses a process, method, or apparatus, including supporting data and analyses, where prevention of its use by GI-INEA's competitors without license from GHNEA constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies;
b. Information which, if used by a competitor, would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product;
c. Information which reveals aspects of past, present, or future GHNEA customer-funded development plans and programs, resulting in potential products to GHNEA;
d. Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

The information sought to be withheld is considered to be proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs (4)a. and (4)b. above.

aff GE-SSES-AEP-329, 07/03/07 Affidavit Page I of 3

(5) To address 10 CFR 2.390(b)(4), the information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in confidence. The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by GHNEA, and is in fact so held. The information sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by GHNEA, no public disclosure has been made, and it is not available in public sources. All disclosures to third parties, including any required transmittals to NRC, have been made, or must be made, pursuant to regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements which provide for maintenance of the information in confidence. Its initial designation as proprietary information, and the subsequent steps taken to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, are as set forth in paragraphs (6) and (7) following.

(6) Initial approval of proprietary treatment of a document is made by the manager of the originating component, the person most likely to be acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge, or subject to the terms under which it was licensed to GHNEA. Access to such documents within GHNEA is limited on a "need to know" basis.

(7) The procedure for approval of external release of such a document typically requires review by the staff manager, project manager, principal scientist, or other equivalent authority for technical content, competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside GHNEA are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential customers, and their agents, suppliers, and licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements.

(8) The information identified in paragraph (2), above, is classified as proprietary because it contains details of steam dryer fatigue analyses of the design of the replacement Susquehanna BWR Steam Dryer. Development of this information and its application for the design, procurement and analyses methodologies and processes for the Steam Dryer Program was achieved at a significant cost to GE, on the order of approximately two million dollars.

The development of the dryer performance evaluation process along with the interpretation and application of the analytical results is derived from the extensive experience database that constitutes a major GHNEA asset.

(9) Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to GHNEA's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities. The information is part of GHNEA's comprehensive BWR safety and technology base, and its commercial value extends beyond the original development cost.

The value of the technology base goes beyond the extensive physical database and analytical methodology and includes development of the expertise to determine and apply the appropriate evaluation process. In addition, the technology base includes the value derived from providing analyses done with NRC-approved methods.

aff GE-SSES-AEP-329, 07/03/07 Affidavit Page 2 of 3

The research, development, engineering, analytical and NRC review costs comprise a substantial investment of time and money by GHNEA.

The precise value of the expertise to devise an evaluation process and apply the correct analytical methodology is difficult to quantify, but it clearly is substantial.

GHNEA's competitive advantage will be lost if its competitors are able to use the results of the GHNEA experience to normalize or verify their own process or if they are able to claim an equivalent understanding by demonstrating that they can arrive at the same or similar conclusions.

The value of this information to GHNEA would be lost if the information were disclosed to the public. Making such information available to competitors without their having been required to undertake a similar expenditure of resources would unfairly provide competitors with a windfall, and deprive GI-INEA of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage to seek an adequate return on its large investment in developing and obtaining these very valuable analytical tools.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on this 3 rd day of July 2007.

James F. Harrison Project Manager, Fuel Licensing, Regulatory Affairs GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC aff GE-SSES-AEP-329, 07/03/07 Affidavit Page 3 of 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML072010364&oldid=2660011"