ML083570193
| ML083570193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/2008 |
| From: | Global Nuclear Fuel Japan Co, Ltd |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RBG-46863 GNF S-0000-0088-0271, Rev 0 | |
| Download: ML083570193 (21) | |
Text
Attachment 5 RBG-46863 GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0, "GE14 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility with River Bend Legacy Fuel," Non-Proprietary Version
G I.
Global Nuclear Fuel A Join Venture of GE, Toshiba, & Hitachi P. 0. Box 780, Wilmington, NC 28402-0780, USA GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I July 2008 GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GE14 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility With River Bend Legacy Fuel Verification Status:
Verified
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Disclaimer The only undertakings of Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) respecting information in this document are contained in the Contract for Fuel Bundle Fabrication and Related Services for River Bend Station between Entergy Operations, Inc. and Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas LLC and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the contract.
The use of this information by anyone other than Entergy Operations, Inc., or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, GNF makes no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that is use may not infringe privately owned rights.
Proprietary Information Notice This document is the GNF non-proprietary version of the GNF proprietary report. From the GNF proprietary version, the information denoted as GNF proprietary (enclosed in double brackets) was deleted to generate this version.
Verified Information Page 2 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Iiformation Class I Table of Contents 1.0O 2.0 2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
3.0 4.0 5.0 INTRODUCTIO N........................................................................................................................................
5 CALCULATION PROCESS........................................................................................................................
5 M ETHODS AND CORRELATIONS.................................................................................................................
5 A SS U M PT IO N S..............................................................................................................................................
5 IN P U T S.........................................................................................................................................................
6 CRITERIA.....................................................................................................................................................
7 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................................
7 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................
9 Verified Information Page 3 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I List of Figures FIGURE 1. AXIAL POW ER SHAPE PROFILES...............................................................................
.................. 10 List of Tables TABLE 1. CORE PERFORMANCE (100% P/107% F)..............................................................................................
11 TABLE 2. CORE PERFORMANCE (100% P/83.4% F)................................................................................................... 11 TABLE 3. CORE PERFORMANCE (64.1% P/36.2% F).................................................................................................
11 TABLE 4. PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON AT'RuMTM - 10 vs. GE14 (100%P/107%F)......................
12 TABLE 5. PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON ATRIUMT
¶- 10 vs. GE14 (100%P/83.4%F)..................................
12 TABLE 6. PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON ATRIUMTM-10 vs. GE14 (64.1%P/36.2%F)..................................
13 TABLE 7. H OT BUNDLE M C PR.................................................................................................................................
13 TABLE 8. GE14 HOT BUNDLE W ATER ROD FLOW (KLB/HR)................................................................................. 13 TABLE 9. GE14 WATER ROD EXIT QUALITY..............................................................
14 TABLE 10. BYPASS EXIT QUALITY AND TOP LPRM VOID FRACTION FOR HOT BUNDLE AND CORE AVERAGE... 15 TABLE 11. CORE PERFORMANCE (100% P & 107.0% F) (OUTLET PEAKED AXIAL POWER SHAPE).................... 16 TABLE 12. BYPASS EXIT QUALITY AND TOP LPRM VOID FRACTION FOR HOT BUNDLE AND CORE AVERAGE (O UTLET PEAKED AXIAL POW ER SHAPE).......................................
.................................................................. 16 Verified Information Page 4 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I 1.0 Introduction The thermal hydraulic, compatibility report provides a summary of the thermal hydraulic evaluations performed to demonstrate acceptable thermal hydraulic compatibility of the GE 14 fuel assembly with the River Bend legacy fuel assemblies.
The specific acceptance criterion associated with the thermal hydraulic compatibility of GEl4 fuel with legacy fuel is that the new fuel is not to significantly degrade the performance of the legacy fuel in the core from a thermal hydraulic perspective. Specifically, during a transition to GNF GE14 fuel the legacy fuel should not experience unacceptable changes to MCPR, plenum-to-plenum pressure drop, or bundle flow. In addition, the introduction of GEl4 fuel should not cause significant voiding in the bypass region or water rods. These characteristics will be addressed in the thermal hydraulic compatibility report.
Analyses cover the transition from a core loaded completely with AtriumTM -
10 fuel to one loaded completely with GE14 fuel.
Steady state 6alculations are performed over a range of operating core flows and core thermal powers. The results of these evaluations support the conclusion that GE14 fuel and the legacy fuel can be safely and acceptably operated together at the River Bend plant.
2.0 Calculation Process 2.1. Methods and Correlations The ISCOR engineering computer program was used for all analyses documented in this report.
ISCOR performs a steady state thermal hydraulic analysis of a nuclear reactor core. ISCOR is the code that implements the NRC approved methodology for performing steady state thermal hydraulic evaluations as described in Reference 1. Inputs required for the code include reactor core power level and distribution, inlet flow conditions, reactor core operation pressure, and a hydraulic description of the reactor fuel bundles. The code calculates the core flow distribution and core pressure drop for a given inlet core flow. The code considers the pressure drop and flow in the reactor core only. Detailed modeling of the bypass region, leakage flow paths, and water rod hydraulics is included.
Pressure drop correlations are applied to calculated contributions due to friction, local losses, elevation, and acceleration.
Thermal performance calculations for GE14 fuel are carried out using the GEXL14 critical quality - boiling length correlation (Reference 2). Thermal performance calculations for Atrium 10 fuel are carried out using the GEXL97 correlation (Reference 3) to determine relative thermal performance in the River Bend Core.
2.2. Assumptions
(( characteristics were assumed for all predictions of thermal hydraulic performance. This is consistent with the GNF design and licensing evaluation procedures.
)) fuel geometry with ((
] was used for both Atrium TM 10 and GE14 fuel types. Flow to the bypass region via the GE14 channel-to-lower tie plate finger Verified Information Page 5 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I spring leakage path used ((
)) conditions. Both assumptions tend to reduce leakage flow to the bypass. The minimum bypass flow condition provides a conservative determination of maximum expected bypass voiding while not significantly affecting.the relative sharing of flow between fuel bundle types or the relative comparison of other performance parameters.
2.3. Inputs The GEl4 fuel assembly (Reference 4) has a 10 x 10 rod array with 92 fuel rods, fourteen of which are part length, and two large central water rods. The fuel and water rods are spaced and supported by the upper and lower tie plates, with intermediate spacing provided by eight Zircaloy ferrule spacers. The fuel assembly fits into a channel box consisting of a Zircaloy shell fitted to the lower tie plate. The geometrical inputs used in the thermal hydraulic design analyses were derived from the mechanical configuration of the assembly.
Pressure drop local loss coefficients and critical power correlation coefficients (Reference 2) were derived from test data.
The AtriumTM -
10 fuel assembly has a 10 x 10 rod array with 91 fuel rods and a central water channel. There are 83 full length fuel rods and 8 partial length fuel rods. The fuel rods attach to the lower tie plate and upper tie plate with intermediate spacing provided by eight Zircaloy-4 spacers. The Zircaloy channel box is attached to the lower tie plate. A handle assembly is part of the upper tie plate used for lifting the entire assembly. The geometrical inputs used in the thermal hydraulic design analyses were derived from the mechanical configuration of the assembly. Pressure drop local loss coefficients were derived from information provided by Entergy/Areva.
Analyses were performed for three power/flow state points along-the boundary of the River Bend operating domain (Reference 5).
The power/flow state points are: rated power at maximum flow, rated power at minimum flow, and minimum pump speed at maximum power (64.1 %P/36.2%F)..
Verified Information Page 6 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I 3.0 Criteria The thermal hydraulic design process is closely coupled with other evaluations performed to demonstrate compliance with safety and performance criteria, including core nuclear design and the thermal hydraulic critical power correlations for AtriumTM -
10 fuel. The results from the design analyses documented in this report provide confirmation of the thermal hydraulic performance characteristics applied in these other evaluations. The specific acceptance criterion associated with the thermal hydraulic compatibility of GE14 fuel with legacy fuel is:
The new fuel is not to significantly degrade the performance of the legacy fuel in the core from a thermal hydraulic perspective.
Specifically, during a transition to GE14 fuel the legacy fuel should not experience unacceptable changes to MCPR, plenum-to-plenum pressure drop, or bundle flow. In addition, results will be provided to demonstrate that the introduction of, GEl4 fuel will not cause or experience significant voiding in the bypass region, the Atrium TM -
10 fuel water channel, or the GEl4 water rods, thereby maintaining compatibility with core monitoring instrumentation.
4.0 Results Core performance predictions for the three core power/flow analysis conditions are provided in Tables 1 through 3. As the GEl4 core fraction increases, the core plenum-to-plenum pressure drop ((
)). The overall core pressure drop change is ((
)) or less for the three power/flow state points analyzed. A hot bundle Hot Channel Power Peaking Factor of ((
))
was used for this analysis. The AtriumTM -
10 bundles receive ((
)) active flow at the higher core flows, which results in a
)) average void fraction over fuel length. The Hot Bundle Active Flow changes by ((
or less between an all Atrium 10 core and an all GE14 core.
The pressure drop comparisons between AtriumTM -
10 and GE14 designs are shown in Tables 4 through 6. These results show that the change in total pressure drop acoss the core comparing an all AtriumTM -
10 core to an all GEl4 core is less than ((
Table 7 provides predictions for both the Atrium 10 and GE14 for the hot bundle MCPR. It is seen that there is no degradation in CPR for the legacy fuel as GEl4 fuel is introduced into the core. The largest delta in MCPR, including off rated conditions, is less than ((
)). Table 8 shows the GEl4 Hot Bundle Water Rod Flow for the three power/flow analysis conditions.
These results show that the flow through the GEl4 Hot Bundle Water Rod is not degraded by the presence of AtriumTM - 10 fuel.
The water rod exit quality is analyzed for the GEl4 fuel. The potential for water rod voiding increases as the core flow decreases leading to reduced water rod flow and inlet subcooling.
Table 9 provides the exit quality for the GEN4 water rod for the various core loadings and power/flow analysis conditions (minus the all Atrium 10 core).
Minimum voiding is expected for the GEl 4 water rod for the minimum pump speed condition.
The potential for voiding in the bypass region was evaluated for several core compositions, including all Atrium 1.0 fuel core. The power/flow analysis conditions include rated power/
increased core flow and rated power/reduced core flow (100%P/107%F and 100%P/83.4%F).
Verified Information Page 7 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 10 shows the bypass void fraction at the top LPRM and the bundle bypass exit quality for the bypass region of the hot bundle and the core average. In order to minimize the uncertainty in monitoring four bundle cell axial power using the thermal Traversing In-core Probe (TIP) system in conjunction with Local Power Range Monitors (LPRMs), it is necessary to-prevent peak local bypass voiding at the top LPRM axial position from exceeding a ((
)) void figure of merit.
Table 10 demonstrates that none of the top LPRM Void Fractions exceed ((
)).
The sensitivity to the power shape was studied by analyzing an outlet peaked power shape at the rated power/increased core flow analysis conditions (100%P/107%F).
Tables 1-10 are the results from a Bottom Peaked power shape. Tables 11 and 12 are from the Outlet Peaked power shape. Table 1 provides the core performance values for comparison to Table 1, which contains the core performance values for the bottom peaked power shape. The top LPRM Void Fraction and Exit Quality of the bypass region for the top peaked power shape are given in Table 12, and can be compared to Table 10. It is seen that the top LPRM Void fractions are ((
)) or less for all bundles and fuel type combinations.
Verified Information Page 8 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271, Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I 5.0 References
- 1. General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II), NEDE-2401 l-P-A-16, October 2007.
- 2.
GEXL14 Correlation for GEl4 Fuel, NEDC-32851P-A, Rev. 4, September 2007.
- 3. GEXL97 Correlation Applicable To AtriumTM -
10 Fuel, NEDC-33383P, Rev. 1, June 2008
- 4. GEl4 Compliance With Amendment 22 of NEDE-24011-P-A (GESTAR II), NEDC-32868P, Rev. 2, September 2007.
- 5. Safety Analysis Report for River Bend Station Thermal Power Optimization, NEDC-33051 P, May 2002.
Verified Information Page 9 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Figure 1. Axial Power Shape Profiles
[1 Verified Information Page 10 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 1. Core Performance (100%P/107%F)
Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)
- Bypass,
.Pressure Flow AtriumTM - 10 GE14 Drop (psi) (% of Total) AtriumTM - 10 GE14 624 0
((
468 156 312 312 156 468 0
624
))
Table 2. Core Performance (100%P/83.4%F)
Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)
Bypass Pressure Flow AtriumTM - 10 GE14 Drop (psi)
(% of Total) AtriumTM - 10 GE14 624
.0
((
468 156 312 312 156 468 0
624 Table 3. Core Performance (64.l%P/36.2%F)
Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow (kLb/hr)
Bypass Pressure Flow AtriumTM -10 GE14 Drop (psi) (% of Total) AtriumTM - 10 GE14 624 0
((
468 156 312 312 156 468 0
624
))
Verified Information Page II of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 4. Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium
- 10 vs. GE14 (100%P/107%F) 100% Power & 107%
Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core Flow 50% AtriumTM - 10 50% GE14 AtriumTM -10 GE14 AtriumTM 10 GE14 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr)
Pressure Drop (psi) total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses TotalT Table 5. Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium
- 10 vs. GE14 (100%P/83.4%F) 100% Power & 83.4%
Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core Flow 50% AtriumTM - 10 50% GE14 AtriumTM-10 GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr)
((
Pressure Drop (psi) total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses Total Verified Information Page 12 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 6. Pressure Drop Comparison Atrium
- 10 vs. GE14 (64.1%P/36.2%F 64.1% Power & 36.2% Flow Heterogeneous Core Homogeneous Core 50% AtriumTM - 10 50% GE14 AtriumTM-10 GE14 AtriumTM-10 GE14 Total Bundle Flow (kLb/hr)
Pressure Drop (psi) total friction total elevation total acceleration local losses Total
))
Table 7. Hot Bundle MCPR Core Composition 100% Power 100% Power 64.1% Power 107% Flow 83.4% Flow 36.2% Flow AtriumTM - 10 GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 AtriumTM - 10 GE14 624 0
468 156 312 312 156 468 0
624
]
Table 8. GEM4 Hot Bundle Water Rod Rlnw (kl~l/hrl Core Composition 100% Power 100% Power 64.1% Power 107% Flow 83.4% Flow 36.2% Flow AtriumTM _10 GE14 GE14 GE14 GE14 624 0
N/A N/A N/A 468 156
,312 312 156 468 0
624 Verified Information Page 13 of 16
GN F S-001D-0088-0271 Re~vision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 9. GE14 Water Rod Exit Quality Core Composition GE14 Hot Bundle GE14 Avg Bundle Core Power Core Flow Core Inlet Enthalpy Water Rod Exit Water Rod Exit AtriumTM 10 GE14
(%)
(%)
(BTU/Lb)
Quality Quality 624 0
N/A 100 107 468 156 100 83.4 64.1 36.2 100 107 312 312 100 83.4 64.1 36.2
.100
.107 156 468 100 83.4 64.1 36.2 100 107 0
624 100 83.4 64.1 36.2
))
Verified Information Page 14 of 16
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 10. Bypass Exit Quality and Top LPRM Void Fraction for Hot Bundle and Core Average Core Composition 100% Power& 107% Flow 100% Power & 83.4% Flow Hot Bundle Core Average Hot Bundle Core Average Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Exit Void Exit Void Exit Void Exit Void AtriumTM-10 GE14 Quality Fraction Quality Fraction Quality Fraction Quality Fraction 624 0O 468 156 312 312 156 468 0
624
))
Verified Information Page 15 of 16
GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I
GNF S-0000-0088-0271 Revision 0 GNF Non-Proprietary Information Class I Table 11. Core Performance (100% P & 107.0% F)
Outlet Peaked Axial Power Shape)
Core Composition Core Quantities Hot Bundle Active Flow
____________(kLb/hr)
Pressure Drop Bypass Flow AtriumTM -10 GE14 (psi)
(% of Total)
AtriumTM -10 GE14 624 0
((
468 156 312 312 156 468 0
624
))
Table 12. Bypass Exit Quality and Top LPRM Void Fraction for Hot Bundle and Core Average (Outlet Peaked Axial Power Shape)
Core Composition 100% Power & 107% Flow 100% Power & 83.4% Flow Hot Bundle Core Average Hot Bundle Core Average Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Top LPRM Exit Void Exit Void Exit Void Exit Void AtriumTM-10 GE14 Quality Fraction Quality Fraction Quality Fraction Quality Fraction 624 0
468 156 312 312 156 468 0
624
))
Verified Information Page 16 of 16 RBG-46863 Affidavit for Request to Withhold Information Affidavit for GNF S-0000-0088-0271, Rev. 0
Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas AFFIDAVIT I, Anthony P. Reese, state as follows:
(1) 1 am Reload Licensing Manager, Fuel Engineering, Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas, LLC
("GNF-A"), and 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 the attachment, "GEI4 Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility With River Bend Legacy Fuel" dated July 2008.
GNF proprietary information is identified by a dotted underline inside double square brackets. ((Th.is sentence is an exam.ple.* 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, GNF-A 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 GNF-A's competitors without license from GNF-A 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 GNF-A customer-
,funded development plans/and programs, resulting in potential products to GNF-A;
- d.
Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.
Affidavit Page 1 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 2.390 (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 GNF-A, 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 GNF-A, 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 andsensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge, or subject to the terms under which it was licensed to GNF-A. Access to such documents within GNF-A 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, by the manager of the cognizant marketing function (or his delegate), and by the Legal Operation, for technical content, competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the proprietary designation.
Disclosures outside GNF-A 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) is classified as proprietary because it contains details of GNF-A's fuel design and licensing methodology.
The development of the methods used in these analyses, along with the testing, development and approval of the supporting methodology was achieved at a significant cost, on the order of several million dollars, to GNF-A or its licensor.
Affidavit Page 2 of 3
(9)
Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to GNF-A's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities.
The information is part of GNF-A'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.
The research, development, engineering, analytical, and NRC review costs comprise a substantial investment of time and money by GNF-A.
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.
GNF-A's competitive advantage will be lost if its competitors are able to use the results of the GNF-A 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 GNF-A 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 GNF-A 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 22nd day of July, 2008.
Anthon