ML080380089

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Engineering Report, GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-R0, Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Stress Analysis at Extended Power Uprate Conditions
ML080380089
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 01/31/2008
From:
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
DRF 0000-0067-8191, GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO, PLA-6323 GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-R0
Download: ML080380089 (104)
v • d • e


Text

Attachment 2 to PLA-6323 Non-Proprietary Version of Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Stress Analysis at Extended Power Uprate Conditions Non-Proprietary Notice This is a non-proprietary version of the Attachment I of PLA-6323, which has the proprietary information removed. Portions of the document that have been removed are indicated by an open and closed bracket as shown here (( I ].

(,H HITACHI ITAH GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy 3901 Castle Hayne Rd Wilmington, NC 28401 Non-proprietaryVersion GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO DRF 0000-0067-8191 Class I January 2008 Engineering Report Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Stress Analysis at Extended Power Uprate Conditions

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully INFORMATION NOTICE This is a non-proprietary version of GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-P-RO, which has the proprietaiy information removed. Portions of the document that have been removed are indicated by an open and closed bracket as shown here (( )).

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully The only undertakings of the GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between the company receiving this document and GEH. 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 GEH 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, GEH 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-N E-0000-0079-2 250 NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION REVISION

SUMMARY

Rev,, Required Changes, to Achieve Revision,,

0 None iii

GE-NE-0OOO-OO79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page REV ISIO N SU MMARY ........... ........ ....................................................... iii ACRO NYM S AN D ABBREVIATIO NS ............................................................. .......-... viii

1. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

......... ......... ..... .... ...................... I

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ..... .......... ....... ......... ....... 2
3. DESIG N C RITER IA......... ............... .......... ............... ..................................................... 4 3.1 Fatig ue C riteria ................................................................. ......... . .. . 4 3.2 Acceptance Criteria for Normal, Upset, Emergency and Faulted Conditions ....5
4. INPUTS ........ ................................................. ............. ........ ....... ........ 8 4.1 Material Properties ............................................... 8 4.2 Replacem ent Dryer Design .. ........................................................................... 8 4.3 Operational Pressure Loading ........................................................................ 9 4 .4 Weld Fa cto rs ................................................................................................. . ....15
5. DRY ER FEA MO DEL ...................................................................................... ......................... 17 5.1 Full Dryer Shell Finite Element Model .............................. 17
6. VIBRATION ANALYSIS AND PREDICTED COMPONENT STRESSES .................................... 17 6.1 Vibration Analysis Approach ................................... 17 6.2 Maximum Stresses, Structural Uncertainty and Design Criteria .................. 18 6.3 Calculated Component Maximum Stress Intensities ........................ 19 6.4 (( ] Stress Investigation ................................... 22 6.5 (( ]I Stress Prediction ................................. ... 24 6.6 [ 1)) Stress Prediction...... ................. 25 6.7 Component Stress Intensities with Submodels....................... ........ ........ 26
7. ASME LOAD COMBINATIONS ........ ... ..... .......... ..................... 29 7.1 ASME Code Load Case Stress Results ................................... 29
8. C O NC LU SIO NS ............ , ............ . ................ ....... ........ ......................... 3 1
9. REFERENCES ................................ ................. ...... . . . ........................................... . .. 3 2 iv

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION List of Tables Table 3.2-1 ASME Code Stress Limits....................................................... 5 Table 3.2-2 Susquehanna Units 1 & 2 Steam Dryer Load Combinations....................................... 6 Table 4.1-1 Properties of SS304L (Reference /4]....................................................................................... 8 Table 4.3-1 Steam Dryer Pressure Differentials for Normal Conditions at EPU ....................... 14 Table 4.3-2 Maximum TSV (( 1] Load on the Dryer Face at EPU ..... ...............14 Table 4.3-3 Maximum MSL Break (( 1]Load on the Dryer Face at EPU ............... 15 Table 6.3-1 Maximum Stress Intensity from Vibration Solution under 113%OLTP Loads ......... 20 Table 6.7-1 SSES Dryer Component Fatigue Margin under EPU Condition .................... 27 Table 7.1-1 EPU ASME Results for Normal, Upset, Emergency and Faulted Conditions:

Maximum Stresses .................................................. 30 V

GE-NE-OO0O-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION List of Figures Figure 4.2-1 Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Configuration ..... ..... ........... 34 Figure 4.3.1-1 Pressure Distribution on 900 Hood at LS547, 113% OLTP Nominal .................... 35 Figure 4.3.1-2 Pressure Distribution on 2700 Hood at LS666, 113% OLTP Nominal .............. 36 Figure 4.3.1-3 Peak Pressure Time History, 900 Hood ......................................................................... 37 Figure 4.3.1-4 Peak Pressure Time History, 2700 Hood ..................................................................... 38 Figure 4.3.1-5 Peak Pressure PSD, 900 Hood ............................................................................................. 39 Figure 4.3.1-6 Peak Pressure PSD, 2700 Hood ................................ 40 Figure 4.3.2-1 OBE-Uncracked Seism ic Spectra ..................................................................................... 41 Figure 4.3.2-2 OBE-Cracked Seism ic Spectra .......................................................................................... 42 Figure 4.3.2-3 SSE-Uncracked Seismic Spectra ..................................................................................... 43 Figure 4.3.2-4 SSE-Cracked Seism ic Spectra .......................................................................................... 44 Figure 4 .3.2-5 SRV Sp e ctra ..................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 5.1-1 Susquehanna Replacement Dryer Finite Element Model ........................................ 46 Fig ure 5.1-2 Section of W ater Elem ent ............................................................................................................ 47 Figure 5.1-3 Dryer Half Section and Vane Bank Model Detail .......................................................... 48 Figure 5.1-4 Dryer Divider Plate, Hood Support and Center Cross Beam Model Detail ........... 49 Fig ure 5.1-5 Drye r Ba se Pla te ................................................................................................................................ 50 Fig ure 5.1-6 Troug h Thin Sectio n ..... ....... ..................................................................................................... 51 Fig ure 5.1-7 Tro ug h Thick Se ctio n ....................................................................................................................... 52 Fig u re 5.1-8 Ba nk End Plates - Inn e r.................................................................................................................. 53 Fig u re 5.1-9 Ban k End Pla tes Outer .................................................................................................................... 54 Fig ure 5.1-10 Outlet End Pla tes Inne r ................................................................................................................ 55 Fig ure 5.1-11 Outlet End Plates - Outer ............................................................................................................ 56 Figure 5.1-1 2 Ho o d s Inne r ...................................................................................................................................... 57 Figu re 5.1-13 Ho o d s Ou te r ................................................................................................................................... 58 Fig u re 5.1-14 Inlet End Pla tes Inne r .................................................................................................................. 59 Fig ure 5.1-15 Inlet End Plates Oute r .............................................................. ..................... .......................... 60 Figure 5.1- 16 Skirt .................. .................................... '.......................................................................................... 61 vi

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5.1-17 Drain Pipes ............................................................................................... 62 Figure 5.1-18 Drain Channel ....................................................................................... 63 Fig u re 5 .1-19 Low e r Skirt Rin g ............................................................................................................................ 64 Fig u re 5.1 -2 0 Co v e r Pla te ....................................................................................................................................... 65 Fig u re 5.1-2 1 Ho o d Tee Inne r .......................................................................... .................................................... 66 Fig u re 5.1-2 2 Ho o d Tee Ou te r ........................................................................ ..................................................... 67 Fig u re 5 .1-23 Su p p o rt Rin g ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 5.1-24 Tie Bars - Bank-to-Bank............................................................................................................. 69 Fig u re 5.1-2 5 Tie Ba rs a t Cen te r .......................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 5.1-26 Trans Brace Under Base Plate .......................................................................................... 71 Figure 5.1-27 Trans Brace Brackets ................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 5.1-28 Bank Top Cap - Inner ................................................................................................ 73 Figure 5.1-29 Bank Top Cap - Outer .................................................. .. 74 Figure 5.1-30 Divider Plate - Inner Bank ......................................................................................................... 75 Figure 5.1-31 Divider Plate - Outer Banks ................................................................................................ 76 Figure 5.1-32 Hood Support - Inner Bank ................................................................................................. 77 Figure 5.1-33 Hood Support - Outer Banks .............................................................................................. 78 Figure 5.1-34 Susquehanna Dryer FE Model Boundary Conditions .................................................... 79 Figure 6.1-1 Rayleigh Damping Curve ......................................... .............................................................. 80 Figure 6.4-1 (( I]Stress Intensity from Full FE Model .......................................................... 81 Figure 6.4-2 (( )) Submodel Details ....................................................................................... 82 Figure 6.4-3 (( )) Submodel Cut boundary Conditions ................................................. 83 Figure 6.4-4 l[ )) - Inner Submodel Results .......................................................... 84 Figure 6.4-5 I[ ]) Submodel Results ..................................................................................... 85 Figure 6.5-11[ )) Bank to Bank Peak Stress Intensity ................................................................. 86 Figure 6.5-2 I[ )) Configuration Showing Tie Bar Pad ................................................................ 87 Figure 6.6-1 (( )) - Inner Bank Peak Stress Intensity ....................................................... 88 Figure 6.6-2 Center Bank [R 11Modification ................................................................... 89 Figure 6.6-3 (( 1]Submodel Stress Results 9.............................

90 vii

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-R0 NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Item Short Form Description 1 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 GEH GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy 12 Hz Hertz 13 IGSCC Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking 14 ksi 1000 Pounds per Square Inch 15 Mlbm/hr Millions Pounds Moss per Hour 16 MS Main Steam 17 MSL Main Steam Line 18 MWt Megawatt Thermal 19 NA Not Applicable 20 NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 OBE Operational Basis Earthquake 22 OLTP Original Licensed Thermal Power 23 Pb Primary Bending Stress Intensity 24 PI Local Primary Membrane Stress Intensity 25 Pm General Primary Membrane Stress 26 PPL Pennsylvania Power & Light 27 PSD Power Spectral Density 28 psi Pounds per square inch 29 Ref. Reference 30 RMS Root-Mean-Squared 31 RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel 32 SCF Stress Concentration Factor 33 Sm ASME Code Stress Intensity Limit viii

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Item Short FormS Description 34 SRSS Square Root Sum of Squares 35 SRV Safety Relief Valve 36 SSES Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 37 Su Tensile Strength ix

GE-N E-0000-OO79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

1. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report documents the finite element stress analyses of the 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 ASMIE design criteria under the operating conditions.

The fatigue evaluations are performed at steam flow conditions closely matching the flow conditions expected at 113% of the Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP). 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 the Susquehanna dryer analysis.

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 ASME Code allowable limits at EPU operating conditions.

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

1

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-N P-R0 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 (EPUI conditions

[Reference 1]. The analyses used a finite element model to calculate the steam dryer 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 at steam flow conditions approximating 113% OLTP. In order to evaluate uncertainties in the steam dryer structural frequency response, the time scale of the loads was stretched by plus and minus 10% from the nominal value to create frequency shifts in the load definition. In all the transient response analyses, Rayleigh damping equivalent to a 1% damping ratio was applied. The maximum stresses for each of the modeled dryer components were searched from all the solutions over the range of time histories analyzed. Based on a benchmarking comparison of the analytical results to strain gouge data taken from on-dryer instrumentation in 1985, a scaling factor was developed and applied to address underprediction in the stresses due to both flow and mechanically induced vibration. A second scale factor was developed based on power ascension measurements and used to extrapolate the stress results of 113% OLTP to the full EPU conditions, The resulting stress values were used for component fatigue evaluation.

The results of the analyses for the original Susquehanna dryer indicated that several dryer components were susceptible to fatigue damage under EPU operating condition. After a comprehensive review of alternative dryer modifications and a review of the operational history of the Susquehanna dryers, a replacement dryer configuration was proposed to better withstand the vibration loading environment at EPU conditions. The proposed replacement dryer configuration, ((

)) The proposed dryer was analyzed in Reference 2 to determine the acceptability of the replacement dryer concept. The 2

GE-NE-OOO0-OO79-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION design evaluated in Reference 2 analysis did not include all the fabrication design details, including changes to plate thicknesses and weld configurations that provide additional structural margin in the final as built replacement dryer. The structural analyses described in this report were performed to evaluate the final as built replacement steam dryer structural responses to the vibration loads and ASME load combinations, and to confirm that the final dryer meets the design criteria.

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

3

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

3. DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 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-N E-0000-0079-2250- N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 3.2 Acceptance Criteria for Normal, Upset, Emergency and Faulted Conditions The analysis uses the ASME Code [Reference 31 as a design guide although the dryer is not an ASME Code component. The ASME Code stress limits used in the evaluation of the Susquehanna dryer are listed in Table 3.2-1. Service Level Limits for Service Levels A, B and C are according to NG-3221 and Appendix F Paragraph F-1331 for Level D. Upset condition stress limits are increased by 10%

above the limits shown in this table per NG-3223 (a).

Table 3.2-1 ASME Code Stress Limits Value (ksi) at Temperature Service Level jStress Category fStress Limit 120OF 550.5"F Design and Pm Sm 16.7 14.35 Service Levels A, B Pm+Pb 1.5Sm 25.05 21.525 Service Level C Pm 1.5 Sm 25.05 21.525 Pm+Pb 2.25 Sm 37.575 32.29 Service Level D Pm Min(.7Su or 2.4 SmI 49 34.44 P1 1.51Pm Allowable) 73,5 51.66 P1 + Pb 1.5(Pm Allowable) 73.5 51.66 Legend:

Pm: General primary membrane stress intensity PI: Local primary membrane stress intensity Pb: Primary bending stress intensity Sm: ASME Code stress intensity limit Su: Tensile strength 5

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 3.2-2 shows the ASME Code Section III load combinations as discussed in Reference 15 and used in the Susquehanna replacement steam dryer primary stress evaluation.

Table 3.2-2 Susquehanna Units 1 & 2 Steam Dryer Load Combinations Comb~ No Level Combination A-1 Normal DW + 6PN + FIVN B-1 Upset DW + APN + TSVI + FIVN B-2 Upset DW +APN + TSV 2 B-3 Upset DW +APu + SRV +FIVu B-4 ..R Uet.....................

Upset DW + APN +OBE + FIVN B-5 Upset DW + APu + [SRV 2 + OBE2]0 5 + FIVu C-1 Emergency DW + 6PE + SRVADS + FIVN D-1 Faulted 2 05 DW + APF1 + [ SRVADS 2 + SSE ] -

DW + 6PN + [AC 12+ SSE 2 + FIVN2I 0° 5

D-2 Faulted D-3 Faulted DW + APF2 D-4 Faulted DW + APN + AC2 + FIVN D-5 Faulted DW + APu + [SRV 2 + SSE21 ]-0 + FIVu Definition of Load Acronyms:

AC1 = Acoustic load due to Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) outside containment, at the Rated Power and Core Flow (Hi-Power) Condition (Inward load on the outermost hood closest to the nozzle for the broken line).

AC2 = Acoustic load due to Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) outside containment, at the Low Power/High Core Flow (Interlock) Condition (Inward load on the outermost hood closest to the nozzle for the broken line)..

DW = Metal Weight + Water Weight.

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

6

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 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).

APFI = 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.

OBE = Operating Basis Earthquake.

SSE = Safe Shutdown Earthquake.

SRV = Safety Relief Valve Containment Discharge Loads (Greater of all SRV or SRV-Asymmetric)

SRVADS = SRV Containment Discharge Loads caused by the "Automatic Depressurization System".

TSV.1 = The Initial Acoustic Component of the Turbine Stop Valve (TSV) Closure Load (Inward load on the outermost hoods closest to the nozzles).

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

7

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

4. INPUTS This section describes the key inputs that are used for the steam dryer structural analysis.

4.1 Material Properties The dryer assembly is manufactured from Type 304L conforming to the requirements of the material and fabrication specifications. ASME material properties are used [Reference 4]. The applicable properties are shown in Table 4.1-1.

Table 4.1-1 Properties of SS3O4L [Reference 41 Operating temperature Material / property 550.50F SS304L S., Yield strength, psi 15,950 Su, Ultimate strength, psi 57,200 E, Elastic modulus, psi 25,598,000 4.2 Replacement Dryer Design The structural analysis of the replacement steam dryer is based on the design input drawings [Reference 5] for the replacement design. Key criteria for the replacement steam dryer design are:

1. Increase the structural margin for withstanding the effect of increased structural loading at EPU conditions. This is accomplished by [f

))

Details of these changes were transmitted to the USNRC in Reference 6 in the response to RAI 6A.

8

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

2. Maintain the same dryer hood shape, hood width, hood height and hood setback from the reactor pressure vessel main steam line nozzles so that the pressure load definition for flow induced vibration that was developed from in-plant measurements with the original Susquehanna steam dryer can be directly applied to the replacement steam dryer design. For the replacement steam dryer, this criterion is met. The replacement dryer hood height is identical to the original dryer hood height. Other shape and setback parameters have less than one-percent difference between the original steam dryer and the replacement steam dryer. These differences are much smaller than the acoustic wavelengths for the dominant frequencies observed in the pressure load measurements observed in the plant and, therefore, will have a negligible effect on the acoustic pressure load definition.
3. Introduce a Brace Tube (Trans Brace) under the Trough and Base Plate components and normal to the Trough assemblies. Connectors from the tube extend to both the bottom side of the Trough center and to the bottom edge of the Hood Supports. This Brace Tube controls the motion and provides additional structural margin for all components of the inner Vane Bank Assemblies.

Figure 4.2-1 shows the configuration design of the replacement steam dryer.

4.3 Operational Pressure Loading 4.3.1 Pressure Loading for Flow Induced Vibration 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. These measurements were used as the inputs to CDI's acoustic circuit model to develop the detailed time histories of the pressure over entire dryer structure [Reference 7]

By searching through the load data, the two extreme pressure magnitudes can be found within the provided time period. The positive pressure peak is +0.41 psi, which occurs on the outer hood (90° side) at load step 547. The negative pressure 9

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION peak is -0.43 psi, which occurs on the outer hood (2700 side) at load step 666 The spatial distributions of pressure on the dryer at these two instances are shown in Figures 4.3.1-1 and 4.3.1-2, respectively. The spatial distribution shows that the high pressure occurs near the MSL nozzles for the steamlines with deadlegs.

The pressure time histories, measured at the two maximum pressure locations on the outer hoods, are shown in Figures 4.3.1-3 and 4.3.1-4. [f

)) 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 4.3.1-3 and 4.3.1-4 are shown in Figures 4.3.1-5 and 4.3.1-6, respectively.

The PSD results indicate that the pressure loads contain significant harmonic contents at 15 Hz, 24 Hz, 44 Hz, 54 Hz, and 83 Hz.

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. Because the stress underprediction was predominantly due to the amplitude underprediction in the load definition, this stress underprediction factor will be used in the replacement Susquehanna dryer fatigue evaluation.

The FIV analysis for the replacement steam dryer was performed with the loading developed from the Susquehanna in-plant main steam line pressure measurements for steam flow conditions equivalent to a 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 full EPU conditions.

Dynamic operating measurements are available from three sources for 10

GE-NE-OOOO-OO79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION determining the extrapolation to EPU. Reference 1 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 81, the MSL pressure measurements [Reference 9], and SSES-specific scale model testing [Reference 101. ((

11]

4.3.2 Seismic and SRV Containment Discharge Loading Seismic events transmit loads to the dryer through the vessel support brackets. The SRV containment discharge loads are transmitted to the dryer through the same path.

The original steam dryer seismic loads and SRV containment discharge loads are documented in Reference 11. The original seismic loads were based upon a dryer weight of 80,000 pounds. The replacement steam dryer weight is approximately 110,000 lbs. An analysis was performed by GEH to determine the effect of the increased replacement dryer weight on the Susquehanna plant primary structure seismic/dynamic model. A conservative dryer replacement dryer weight of 117,000 pounds was used in the evaluation. The results of the evaluation demonstrate that the 11]

Therefore, the seismic loads and SRV containment discharge loads in Reference 11 remain applicable for the replacement steam dryer design.

11

GE-NE-OOOO-OO79-225O-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION OBE and SSE loads for spectral analysis input are selected to envelope spectra for both Uncracked and Cracked Shroud configuration as presented in Reference 11 and shown in Figure 4.3.2-1 through 4.3.2-4. SRV spectra and SRV maximum acceleration value are used per Reference 12. Figure 4.3.2-5 shows the spectra for the SRV load case. Structural damping of 2% is used per Table 5.8.1-1 of Reference 13.

12

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 4.3.3 Steady State, Upset Transient, Emergency and Faulted Condition Loads The pressure differentials across the steam dryer are calculated for four categories of events; normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. Normal conditions are the steady-state operating conditions. Upset conditions are the anticipated transient events. ((

)) Emergency condition is within the Susquehanna reactor internals design basis and is defined by the rapid vessel depressurization via operation of the automatic depressurization system relief valves. Faulted conditions are the design basis accident events (e.g. main steam line break). ((

The loads were originally developed for the Reference 1 and 2 evaluation of the Susquehanna steam dryer. These loads were confirmed to remain bounding for the replacement steam dryer due to the small geometric differences between the original Susquehanna steam dryer and the replacement steam dryer.

The pressure differentials across the steam dryer for the normal conditions (APn) at EPU power level are summarized in Table 4.3-1.

13

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 4.3-1 Steam Dryer Pressure Differentials for Normal Conditions at EPU Description~ r (pi 11 The maximum (( 1] loads on the dryer face at EPU power level for the Turbine Stop Valve (TSV) fast closure event are summarized in Table 4.3-2.

Table 4.3-2 Maximum TSV (( 1] Load on the Dryer Face at EPU

-I- -4 4 +

_____ I __

___ I_

__ I __

___ I __

14

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION The maximum f[ )) loads on the dryer face at EPU power level due to the

(( 1]for the Main Steam Line Break event are summarized in Table 4.3-3.

Table 4.3-3 Maximum MSL Break [R )) Load on the Dryer Face at EPU II]

4.4 Weld Factors The calculation of fatigue alternating stress intensity using the prescribed stress concentration factors in ASME Code Section III; Subsection NG [Reference 3] is straightforward when the nominal stress is calculated using the standard 15

GE-NE-O00-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION strength of material formulas. However, when a finite element analysis (FEA) approach is used, the available stress component information is more detailed than that which would be obtained from the standard strength-of-materials formulas and requires added guidance for determining a fatigue stress intensity to be used in conjunction with the ASME Code S-N fatigue design curve.

For the case of full penetration welds, l[

Note that the above discussion of stress concentration effects (SCF's, fatigue factors, weld factors) only applies to the fatigue evaluation. SCF, "fatigue factor,"

and "weld factor" are used interchangeably. For the SSES dryer, the weld quality factor used was 1.0-16

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

5. DRYER FEA MODEL 5.1 Full Dryer Shell Finite Element Model The three-dimensional shell model of the replacement dryer was constructed from the replacement dryer design drawings using the ANSYS finite element analysis code. The model is primarily [

)) Nominal dimensions are used at all locations.

AIC

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

17

GE-NE-OOOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

)) A total of 9 analysis cases are performed with time step variations of +/- 2.5% from nominal to +/10%. Rayleigh damping is used in all of the analyses. Rayleigh damping coefficients H[

))

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. This search is termed "Primary Scoping". The results of this primary scoping may indicate that the peak stress intensity does not occur either at a weld line or plate thickness mismatch. For components where the primary scoping shows that the maximum stress intensity does not occur at a weld line or plate mismatch, the components stress intensities are searched along the weld line or plate mismatches to ensure that the maximum stress intensity after the application of weld factors is reported for each component. Plate mismatch stress intensity is calculated by [R

))

18

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION The fatigue margin is calculated for the maximum stress intensity of each of the nine time shift analysis cases using the following formula:

13600 Fatigue Maargin = 130 Stress x SF 6.3 Calculated Component Maximum Stress Intensities Table 6.3-1 summarizes the component stresses from the 9 load cases. The component identifications correspond to Figures 5.1-5 through 5.1-33. ((

11 19

GE-NE-000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 6.3-1 Maximum Stress Intensity from Vibration Solution under 113%OLTP Loads 20

GE-NE-0OOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

+ 4 '4- 4 4 4 4 .4- 4 4 21

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 6.4 (( 11Stress Investigation The Susquehanna dryer FIV analysis showed ((

)) The objective was to show that stress predictions in this region of the full dryer model are high due to the simplifications made to accommodate a course mesh in the larger full dryer finite element model. Figure 6.4-1 shows the area of high stress intensity from the full dryer FE model results.

1(

22

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION I]

23

GE-NE-OOOO-OO79-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 6.5 (( )) Stress Prediction As shown in Figure 6.5-1, the peak stress intensity for the ((

24

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 6.6 (( )) Stress Prediction The peak stress intensity for the [J

))

25

GE-NE-000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 6.7 Component Stress Intensities with Submodels Table 6.7-1 summarizes the component stresses from the 9 load cases, incorporating the results from the sub-component investigations in Sections 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 of this report. ((

26

GE-N E-0000-0079-2 250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 6.7-1 SSES Dryer Component Fatigue Margin under EPU Condition

+ I I- I- I

+ I + + I

+ I + + I

+ I + + I

+ I + + I

+ I + + I 27

GE-N E-0000-0079-2 250-N P-RO NON~-PROPRIETARY VJERSION 28

GE-N E-O000-0O79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

7. ASME LOAD COMBINATIONS The Susquehanna steam dryer was analyzed for the ASME Code load combinations (primary stresses) shown in Table 7.1-1. The acceptance criteria used for these evaluations are specified in Section 3.2 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.

7.1 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 3.2-1) is a very conservative way of structural components evaluation. However, as it is shown in Table 7.1-1, this conservative qualification has been successful for all the components and load combinations.

Table 7.1-1 lists the components maximum stresses obtained from the ANSYS analysis.

Table 7.1-1 summarizes the ASME load combination analysis results and indicates that the stresses for all structural components are under the allowable ASME Code limits at EPU operating conditions.

29

GE-NE-OO00-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Table 7.1-1 EPU ASME Results for Normal, Upset, Emergency and Faulted Conditions: Maximum Stresses 3[0 30

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

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

Adetailed 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.

31

GE-NE-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

9. REFERENCES

[11 "Susquehanna Steam Dryer Fatigue Analysis", GENE 0000-0057-4166-R1, September 2006

[21 "Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Fatigue Analysis", GE-NE-0000-0061-0595-P-R1, June 2007.

[31 ASME B&PV Code,Section III, 1989 Edition with no Addenda.

[41 ASME B&PV Code, Section 11,Part D-Properties, 2001 and Addenda through 2003 Addenda.

[51 GEH Drawing 223D5360, Steam Dryer Assembly (Including subtier drawings from Part List PL223D5360).

[61 PPL Letter PLA-6242, B.T. McKinney (PPL) to Document Control Desk (USNRC),

"Proposed License Amendment Numbers 285 for Unit 1 Operating License No. NPF-14 and 253 for Unit 2 License NPF Extended Power Uprate Application Regarding Steam Dryer and Flow Effects Request for Additional Information Responses," dated July 31, 2007- Response to RAI 6A

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

[81 MDE #199-0985, "Susquehanna - 1 Steam Dryer Vibration Steady State and Transient Response," October 1985.

[91 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.

[10] Neiheisel, M., Test Report # 1 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 Scale Model Test. GEN E-0000-0054-2552. May 2006.

[11] NSSS Seismic Load Evaluation for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 & 2, VPF 299X126-037, Rev. 0

[12] Dynamic Loads Report - Safety Relief Valve, GE 22A7402 32

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

[13] Dynamic Load Method & Criteria - NSSS Equipment, Piping, RPV & Internals, Design, Specification, GE 386HA596

[14] "Recommended Weld Quality and Stress Concentration Factors for use in the Structural Analysis of Exelon Replacement Steam Dryer", GE-NE 0000-0039-4817-1, Class It,April 2005 (15] "Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 Steam Dryer Load Combinations", GE-NE-0000-0051-3346-RO, Class III, April 2006 33

GE-NE-OOOO-O79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

[I 1]

Figure 4.2-1 Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Configuration 34

GE-N E-000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION l[

Figure 4.3.1-1 Pressure Distribution on 900 Hood at LS547, 113% OLTP Nominal 35

GE-N E-OOO0-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1[

11 Figure 4.3.1-2 Pressure Distribution on 2700 Hood at LS666, 113% OLTP Nominal 36

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250- NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION F]

Figure 4.3.1-3 Peak Pressure Time History, 900 Hood 37

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250 NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 4.3.1-4 Peak Pressure Time History, 2700 Hood 38

GE-NE-O000-OO79-2250- NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1[

Figure 4.3.1-5 Peak Pressure PSD, 900 Hood 39

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION F]

Figure 4.3.1-6 Peak Pressure PSD, 2700 Hood 40

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 5U5QUE' ONNA-iOF i 7-70-OSE-UNC,""ACKED t I ý 19W)

-,m I12 r*

it

-1 4 (AZ v

l In f' 'Q,,E2NCY IV ( ~

Figure 4.3.2-1 OBE-Uncracked Seismic Spectra 41

GE-NE-OOOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

ýJH~

f MýR C6ýZ J CHHWFK 1

'C',

4, 2

L0 HFUU NL~ 41 i14

,'L .2 Figure 4.3.2-2 OBE-Cracked Seismic Spectra 42

GE-NE-0000-0079-2 250- NP- RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION QNF iZ-;F0-5SF -1AMAD~Q1, 12 a -

it

-- I i L ................

10 PLd Figure 4.3.2-3 SSE-Uncracked Seismic Spectra 43

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

~S~t~L ~ I Z-E ~i A Figure 4.3.2-4 SSE-Cracked Seismic Spectra 44

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 5SUUEHANNMA ENVELOPED SPECTF~n Ii 1:

to

~44~4 FREQUJENCY I H 4lt~,i~,

Figure 4.3.2-5 SRV Spectra 45

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 5.1-1 Susquehanna Replacement Dryer Finite Element Model 46

GE-NE-O000-0079-225O-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION I[

))

Figure 5.1-2 Section of Water Element 47

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250- NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5.1-3 Dryer Half Section and Vane Bank Model Detail 48

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

1]

Figure 5.1-4 Dryer Divider Plate, Hood Support and Center Cross Beam Model Detail 49

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250- NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION I[

Figure 5.1-5 Dryer Base Plate 50

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5.1-6 Trough Thin Section 51

GE-NE-O000-OO79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

11 Figure 5.1-7 Trough Thick Section 52

GE-N E-0000-0079- 2250- NP- RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

[I Figure 5.1-8 Bank End Plates - Inner 53

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

Figure 5.1-9 Bank End Plates Outer 54

GE-NE-OOOO-OO79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1[

1]

Figure 5.1-10 Outlet End Plates Inner 55

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 Figure 5.1-11 Outlet End Plates - Outer 56

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

1]

Figure 5.1-12 Hoods Inner 57

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1[

1]

Figure 5.1-13 Hoods Outer 58

GE-NE-00-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

11 Figure 5.1-14 Inlet End Plates Inner 59

GE-NE-O000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((.

Figure 5.1-15 Inlet End Plates Outer 60

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 Figure 5.1-16 Skirt 61

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250- NP- RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1[

1]

Figure 5.1-17 Drain Pipes 62

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250- NP- RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5.1-18 Drain Channel 63

GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION R[

11 Figure 5.1-19 Lower Skirt Ring 64

GE-N E-OOOO-OO79-225O-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

[t 1]

Figure 5.1-20 Cover Plate 65

GE-NE-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5.1-21 Hood Tee Inner 66

GE-N E-000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 Figure 5.1-22 Hood Tee Outer 67

GE-NE-O00-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

11 Figure 5.1-23 Support Ring 68

GE-NE-OOOO-OO79-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 5.1-24 Tie Bars - Bank-to-Bank 69

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250- NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5.1-25 Tie Bars at Center 70

GE-NE-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

[R

))

Figure 5.1-26 Trans Brace Under Base Plate 71

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

'I 11 Figure 5.1-27 Trans Brace Brackets 72

GE-NE-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 Figure 5.1-28 Bank Top Cap - Inner 73

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((.

Figure 5.1-29 Bank Top Cap - Outer 74

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1]

Figure 5.1-30 Divider Plate - Inner Bank 75

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

['

1]

Figure 5.1-31 Divider Plate - Outer Banks 76

GE-N E-0000-0079-2 2 50-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

[R 11 Figure 5.1-32 Hood Support - Inner Bank 77

GE-N E-OOOO-OO79-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Figure 5.1-33 Hood Support - Outer Banks 78

GE-NE-OOOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 11 Figure 5.1-34 Susquehanna Dryer FE Model Boundary Conditions 79

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 Figure 6.1-1 Rayleigh Damping Curve 80

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION lI Figure 6.4-1 (( 1]Stress Intensity from Full FE Model 81

GE-N E-0000-0079- 22SO- NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 1]

Figure 6.4-2 U[ )) Submodel Details 82

GE-NE-OOOO-OO79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 1]

Figure 6.4-3 (( 1]Submodel Cut boundary Conditions 83

GE-NE-OOOO-OO79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION lIE 11 Figure 6.4-4 (( ]1 - Inner Submodel Results 84

GE-N E-OOOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

11 Figure 6.4-5 f[ 1] Submodel Results 85

GE-NE-0000-OO79-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION If 11 Figure 6.5-1 (( )) Bank to Bank Peak Stress Intensity 86

GE-NE-OOOO-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 1[

11 Figure 6.5-2 (( )) Configuration Showing Tie Bar Pad 87

GE-NE-OOOO-0079-2250-NP-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

1]

Figure 6.6-1 (( )) - Inner Bank Peak Stress Intensity 88

GE-N E-O000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION

((

11 Figure 6.6-2 Center Bank R )) Modification 89

GE-N E-0000-0079-2250-N P-RO NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION 11 Figure 6.6-3 (( )) Submodel Stress Results 90

Attachment 3 to PLA-6323 GE- Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC Affidavit

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC AFFIDAVIT I, Tim Abney, state as follows:

(1) I am Vice President, Services Licensing, Regulatory Affairs, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC ("GEH"), 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 GEH report, GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-P-RO, Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Stress Analysis at Extended Power Uprate Conditions, January, 2008. The proprietary information is identified .by a dotted underline inside double square brackets. ((This sentence is an exam.l.l. {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 the owner or licensee, GEH 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 GEH's competitors without license from GEH 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 GEH customer-funded development plans and programs, resulting in potential products to GEH;
d. Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

Aff GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-P-RO Affidavit Page I of 3

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

(5) To address 10 CFR 2.3 90(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 GEH, 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 GEH, 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 GEH. Access to such documents within GEH is limited on a "need to know" basis.

(7) The procedure for approval of external release of such a document typically requires review Iby 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 GEH 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 results and details of structural analysis methods and techniques developed by GEH for evaluations of BWR Steam Dryers. Development of these methods, techniques, and information and their application to the design, modification, and analyses methodologies and processes for the Steam Dryer Program was achieved at a significant cost to GEH.

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

(9) Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to GEH's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities. The information is part of GEH'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 Aff GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-P-RO Affidavit Page 2 of 3

the appropriate evaluation process. In addition, the technology base includes the value derived from providing analyses done with NRC-approved methods.

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

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.

GEH's competitive advantage will be lost if its competitors are able to use the results of the GEH 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 GEH 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 GEH 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 o f 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 18th day of January, 2008.

GE-Hitachi Tim E. Abney a Enrg A mrcs c LLC Aff GE-NE-0000-0079-2250-P-RO Affidavit Page 3 of 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML080380089&oldid=2657902"