ML100710444

Enclosure 2, GE-MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1, GEH Responses to NRC Supplemental Requests 1, 3, and 4

ML100710444
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	03/04/2010
From:	GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, Northern States Power Co, Xcel Energy
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-MT-10-017, TAC ME3145 GE-MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev 1
Download: ML100710444 (27)

Text

ENCLOSURE 2 GE-MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 GEH Responses to NRC Supplemental Requests 1, 3, and 4 NON-PROPRIETARY NOTICE This is a non-proprietary version of Enclosure 1 of GE-MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev 1, from which the proprietary information has been removed. Portions of the document that have been removed are indicated by an open and closed bracket as shown here ((

I].

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Non-proprietary Version Page 1 of 26 NRC Supplemental Request 1 Limitation 12.8 from the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) for licensing topical report (LTR)

NEDC-33006P, "General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus," (hereafter the M+LTR) requires submittal of the reactor pressure vessel fluence evaluation. Section 3.2.1 of NEDC-33435P, "Safety Analysis Report for Monticello Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus," (hereafter the M+SAR) briefly describes the vessel and shroud fluence evaluation. Please provide a detailed description of the analysis including a list of assumptions, justification for the assumptions, and numerical results.

GEH Response Descriptions of the GEH flux evaluation methodology, its associated assumptions, and the justification of said assumptions used in this analysis are contained in the NRC-approved NEDC-32983P-A (Ref. 1) and were not repeated in the M+SAR. Numerical results of this analysis were summarized generally in the M+SAR with the observation of a negligible change in the peak fluence of <1% between extended power upratc (EPU) and M+ states. For purposes of comparison, key numerical flux/fluence results and their respective parameters are provided in the Tables 1 through 5 and Figures 1 through 6.:

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 2 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Table I Key Results for 120% Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) Value

~~

~

PU M+.EU o-I Itemn Parameter.~

Unit

<ale aue 1O% LT oprin I

Azimuthal flux n/cm2 s Fig. I Fig. 1 Ratio of M+/EPU peak flux is distribution at Reactor 3.67E9/3.70E9 = 0.99.

Pressure Vessel (RPV)

ID 2

Relative axial flux N/A Fig. 2 Fig. 2 See Fig. 2.

distribution at RPV ID 3

Azimuthal flux n/cm2-s Fig. 3 Fig. 3 Ratio of M+/EPU peak flux is distribution at shroud ID 2.93E 12/2.87E 12 = 1.02.

4 Relative axial flux N/A Fig. 4 Fig. 4 See Fig. 4.

distribution at shroud ID 5

54-EFPY axial fluence n/cm 2 Fig. 5 Combined pre-EPU and M+

distribution at RPV ID and values Table 2 6

54-EFPY axial flucnce n/cm2 Fig. 6 Combined pre-EPU and M+

distribution at shroud ID and values Table 3 7

Capsule (300 azimuth) n/cm2-s 1.36E9 1.35E9 Ratio of M+/EPU flux is 0.99 flux 8

Capsule lead factor N/A 0.37 0.37 9

Peak flux at top guide n/cm2-s 1.22E13 1.22E13 Ratio of M+/EPU peak flux is I_

1_

_1.0 10 Peak flux at core plate n/cm 2-s 2.69E II 2.78E I I Ratio of M+/EPU peak flux is 1.03

!1 54-EFPY peak fluence at n/cm2 1.92E22 1.92E22 Ratio of M+/EPU peak fluence top guide is 1.0 12 54-EFPY peak fluencc at n/cm2 4.43E20 4.51E20 Ratio of M+/EPU peak flucncc I core plate I

I is 1.02

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 3 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Table 2 Axial Distribution of 54-EFPY Fast Neutron Fluence at RPV Inner Surface Elevation Fluence Above BAF (nrcm 2-s)

(inches)

-29.52 1.26E+16

-28.57 1.71E+16

-27.62 2.13E+16

-26.66 2.60E+ 16

-25.71 3.14E+16

-24.76 3.75E+16

-23.81 4.49E+ 16

-22.85 5.34E+16

-21.90 6.33E+16

-20.95 7.47E+16

-19.99 8.82E+16

-19.04 1.04E+17

-18.09 1.22E+17

-17.13 1.42E+17

-16.18 1.66E+17

-15.23 1.92E+ 17

-14.28 2.22E+17

-13.32 2.57E+17

-12.37 2.95E+17

-11.42 3.37E+17

-10.44 3.86E+ 17

-9.45 4.41E+17

-8.45 5.03E+ 17

-7.46 5.72E+ 17

-6.46 6.50E+17

-5.47 7.34E+ 17

-4.48 8.27E+17

-3.48 9.25E+17

-2.49 1.03E+18

-1.49 1.15E+18

-0.50 1.26E+18 0.76 1.41E+18 Elevation Flumnee Above BAF (n/cm 2-s)

(inches) 2.27 1.61E+18 3.78 1.82E+18 5.30 2.04E+ 18 6.81 2.25E+18 8.32 2.47E+ 18 9.83 2.68E+18 11.35 2.89E+18 12.86 3.09E+ 18 14.37 3.27E+ 18 15.89 3.45E+18 17.40 3.61E+18 18.91 3.76E+18 20.42 3.90E+ 18 21.94 4.04E+ 18 23.45 4.16E+18 24.96 4.28E+18 26.48 4.39E+18 27.99 4.50E+ 18 29.50 4.61E+18 31.01 4.70E+18 32.53 4.80E+ 18 34.04 4.89E+18 35.55 4.99E+ 18 37.07 5.08E+18 38.58 5.16E+18 40.09 5.25E+18 41.61 5.33E+18 43.12 5.41E+18 44.63 5.49E+ 18 46.14 5.56E+18 47.66 5.63E+18 49.17 5.70E+18 Elevation Fluence Above BAF (n/cm 2-s)

(inches) 50.68 5.77E+18 52.20 5.83E+18 53.71 5.89E+18 55.22 5.95E+18 56.73 6.OOE+18 58.25 6.05E+ 18 59.76 6.10E+18 61.27 6.14E+ 18 62.79 6.18E+18 64.30 6.22E+18 65.81 6.25E+ 18 67.33 6.28E+18 68.84 6.30E+18 70.35 6.33E+18 71.86 6.34E+18 73.38 6.36E+18 74.89 6.37E+18 76.40 6.38E+18 77.92 6.39E+ 18 79.43 6.39E+ 18 80.94 6.39E+ 18 82.45 6.38E+18 83.97 6.38E+18 85.48 6.37E+18 86.99 6.37E+18 88.51 6.36E+18 90.02 6.35E+18 91.53 6.34E+18 93.04 6.34E+ 18 94.56 6.32E+18 96.07 6.32E+18 97.58 6.30E+18

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 4 of 26 Elcvation Fluencc Above BAF (n/cm 2-s)

(inches) 99.10 6.29E+18 100.61 6.27E+ 18 102.12 6.26E+18 103.63 6.23E+18 105.15 6.20E+ 18 106.66 6.16E+18 108.17 6.11E+18 109.69 6.05E+ 18 111.20 5.99E+ 18 112.71 5.91E+/-18 114.23 5.82E+18 115.74 5.72E+18 117.25 5.61E+18 118.76 5.48E+18 120.28 5.33E+18 121.79 5.17E+18 123.30 4.99E+18 124.82 4.80E+ 18 126.33 4.59E+18 127.84 4.36E+ 18 129.35 4.12E+18 Non-proprietary Version Elevation Fluencc Above BAF (n/cm 2 _s)

(inches) 130.87 3.88E+18 132.38 3.63E+18 133.89 3.37E+18 135.41 3.IIE+18 136.92 2.85E+18 138.43 2.59E-18 139.94 2.34E+18 141.46 2.1IE+18 142.97 1.89E+18 144.48 1.69E+18 145.73 1.54E+ 18 146.71 1.42E+18 147.69 1.31E+18 148.68 1.19E+18 149.66 1.08E+18 150.64 9.78E+17 151.62 8.79E+17 152.60 7.89E+17 153.58 7.07E+17 154.56 6.33E+17 155.55 5.66E+17 Elevation Fluence Above BAF (n/cm 2-s)

(inchcs) 156.53 5.07E+ 17 157.51 4.51E+17 158.48 4.02E+ 17 159.44 3.58E+17 160.39 3.17E+ 17 161.35 2.81Et17 162.31 2.47E+ 17 163.27 2.18E+ 17 164.23 1.91E+17 165.18 1.67E+17 166.14 1.46E+ 17 167.10 1.27E+17 168.06 1.IOE+17 169.01 9.57E+16 169.97 8.24E+ 16 170.93 7.09E+16 171.89 6.03E+16 172.85 5.07E+16 173.80 4.18E+16 174.76 3.11E+16

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Page 5 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Table 3 Axial Distribution of 54-EFPY Fast Neutron Fluence at Shroud Inner Surface Elevation Fluence Above BAF (n/cm 2-s)

(inches)

-29.52 2.16E+17

-28.57 3.04E+ 17

-27.62 4.OOE+17

-26.66 5.19E+1 7

-25.71 6.79E+17

-24.76 8.70E+ 17

-23.81 1.13E+18

-22.85 1.47E+18

-21.90 1.90E+18

-20.95 2.46E+ 18

-19.99 3.19E+18

-19.04 4.16E+18

-18.09 5.36E+18

-17.13 7.OOE+1 8

-16.18 9.03E+18

-15.23 1.18E+19

-14.28 1.52E+19

-13.32 1.98E+19

-12.37 2.56E+19

-11.42 3.33E+19

-10.44 4.36E+19

-9.45 5.73E+19

-8.45 7.58E+19

-7.46 9.94E+19

-6.46 1.31 E+20

-5.47 1.70E+20

-4.48 2.20E+20

-3.48 2.84E+20

-2.49 3.62E+20

-1.49 4.60E+20

-0.50 5.75E+20 0.76 7.33E+20 Elevation Fluence Above BAF (n/cm 2-s)

(inches) 2.27 9.61E+20 3.78 1.20E+21 5.30 1.46E+21 6.81 1.74E+21 8.32 1.99E+21 9.83 2.21E+21 11.35 2.38E+21 12.86 2.53E+21 14.37 2.66E+21 15.89 2.76E+21 17.40 2.85E+21 18.91 2.94E+21 20.42 3.01E+21 21.94 3.08E+21 23.45 3.14E+21 24.96 3.21E+21 26.48 3.28E+21 27.99 3.35E+21 29.50 3.42E+21 31.01 3.49E+21 32.53 3.56E+21 34.04 3.63E+21 35.55

.3.70E+21 37.07 3.78E+21 38.58 3.85E+21 40.09 3.92E+21 41.61 3.99E+21 43.12 4.06E+21 44.63 4.13E+21 46.14 4.19E+21 47.66 4.25E+21 49.17 4.31E+21 Elevation Fluence Above BAF (n/cm2-s)

(inches) 50.68 4.37E+21 52.20 4.42E+21 53.71 4.47E+21 55.22 4.52E+21 56.73 4.57E+21 58.25 4.61E+21 59.76 4.65E+2 1 61.27 4.69E+21 62.79 4.72E+21 64.30 4.75E+21 65.81 4.78E+21 67.33 4.81E+21 68.84 4.84E+21 70.35 4.86E+21 71.86 4.88E+21 73.38 4.90E+21 74.89 4.91E+21 76.40 4.92E+21 77.92 4.93E+21 79.43 4.93E+21 80.94 4.93E+21 82.45 4.92E+21 83.97 4.89E+21 85.48 4.86E+21 86.99 4.84E+21 88.51 4.83E+21 90.02 4.82E+21 91.53 4.81E+21 93.04 4.81E+21 94.56 4.82E+21 96.07 4.82E+21 97.58 4.83E+21

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 6 of 26 Elevation Fluence Above BAF (n/cm2-s)

(inches) 99.10 4.83E+21 100.61 4.84E+21 102.12 4.84E+21 103.63 4.83E+21 105.15 4.82E+21 106.66 4.81 E+21 108.17 4.79E+21 109.69 4.77E+21 111.20 4.74E+21 112.71 4.71E+21 114.23 4.67E+21 115.74 4.62E+21 117.25 4.56E+21 118.76 4.48E+21 120.28 4.40E+21 121.79 4.30E+21 123.30 4.18E+21 124.82 4.05E+21 126.33 3.89E+21 127.84 3.70E+21 129.35 3.49E+21 Non-proprietary Version Elevation Fluence Above BAF (n/cm2-s)

(inches) 130.87 3.25E+21 132.38 2.98E+21 133.89 2.67E+21 135.41 2.38E+21 136.92 2.09E+21 138.43 1.82E+21

.139.94 1.58E+21 141.46 1.38E+21 142.97 1.21E+21 144.48 1.04E+21 145.73 8.92E+20 146.71 7.58E+20 147.69 6.38E+20 148.68 5.34E+20 149.66 4.46E+20 150.64 3.70E+20 151.62 3.07E+20 152.60 2.54E+20 153.58 2.1OE+20 154.56 1.73E+20 155.55 1.43E+20 Elevation Fluence Above BAF (n/cm 2-s)

(inches) 156.53 1.18E+20 157.51 9.78E+ 19 158.48 8.12E+19 159.44 6.75E+ 19 160.39 5.60E+ 19 161.35 4.62E1 19 162.31 3.82E+19 163.27 3.13E+19 164.23 2.58E+ 19 165.18 2.09E+19 166.14 1.72E+19 167.10 1.39E+19 168.06 1.13E+19 169.01 9.19E+18 169.97 7.46E+ 18 170.93 6.04E+ 18 171.89 4.88E+18 172.85 3.92E+ 18 173.80 3.09E+ 18 174.76 2.29E+ 18

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 7 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Table 4 Azimuthal Distribution of 54-EFPY Fast Neutron Fluence at RPV Inner Surface Azimuth Fluencc (degrees)

(n/cm2-s) 0.13 6.39E+18 0.50 6.39E+18 1.00 6.37E+18 1.50 6.37E+ 18 2.00 6.35E+18 2.50 6.33E+18 3.00 6.30E+ 18 3.50 6.27E+ 18 4.00 6.23E+18 4.50 6.19E+18 5.00 6.14E+ 18 5.50 6.08E+18 6.00 6.01E+18 6.50 5.94E+ 18 7.00 5.87E+18 7.50 5.79E+18 8.00 5.70E+18 8.50 5.62E+18 9.00 5.51E+18 9.50 5.40E+ 18 10.00 5.27E+18 10.50 5.13E+18 11.00 4.98E+18 11.50 4.82E+18 12.00 4.68E+18 12.50 4.54E+ 18 13.00 4.40E+18 13.50 4.27E+18 14.00 4.14E+18 14.50 4.01E+18 15.00 3.88E+18 15.50 3.74E+18 Azimuth Fluence (degrees)

(n/cm 2-s) 16.00 3.59E+ 18 16.50 3.45E+18 17.00 3.31E+18 17.50 3.18E+ 18 18.00 3.06E+ 18 18.50 2.94E+18 19.00 2.84E+18 19.50 2.74E+18 20.00 2.65E+18 20.50 2.58E+18 21.00 2.51E+18 21.50 2.44E+18 22.00 2.39E+18 22.50 2.35E+18 23.00 2.32E+18 23.50 2.31 E+ 18 24.00 2.29E+18 24.50 2.28E+ 18 25.00 2.26E+18 25.50 2.24E+18 26.00 2.22E+18 26.50 2.20E+18 27.00 2.19E+ 18 27.50 2.18E+18 28.00 2.13E+18 28.50 2.03E+18 29.00 2.01E+18 29.50 2.OOE+18 30.00 2.OOE+18 30.50 1.99E+ 18 31.00 1.99E+ 18 31.50 2.01E+18 Azimuth Flucnce (degrees)

(nlcm2-s) 32.00 2.10E+18 32.50 2.14E+18 33.00 2.15E+18 33.50 2.15E+18 34.00 2.16E+ 18 34.50 2.17E+18 35.00 2.17E+18 35.50 2.16E+18 36.00 2.14E+18 36.50 2.11E+18 37.00 2.08E+ 18 37.50 2.05E+18 38.00 2.04E+ 18 38.50 2.03E+18 39.00 2.04E+ 18 39.50 2.04E+18 40.00 2.05E+18 40.50 2.05E+18 41.00 2.07E+18 41.50 2.07E+ 18 42.00 2108E+18 42.50 2.08E+18 43.00 2.09E+ 18 43.50 2.09E+18 44.00 2.08E+18 44.50 2.09E+ 18 45.00 2.08E+18 45.50 2.08E+ 18 46.00 2.08E+18 46.50 2.08E+18 47.00 2.08E+ 18 47.50 2.08E+18

GEH MNGP-AEP-1 687, Rev. I Page 8 of 26 Azimuth Fluencc (degrees)

(n/cm 2-s) 48.00 2.07E+18 48.50 2.06E+18 49.00 2.05E+18 49.50 2.04E+18 50.00 2.03E+18 50.50 2.02E+18 51.00 2.02E+18 51.50 2.01E+18 52.00 2.02E+ 18 52.50 2.03E+18 53.00 2.05E+18 53.50 2.09E+18 54.00 2.11E+18 54.50 2.13E+18 55.00 2.13E+18 55.50 2.13E+18 56.00 2.12E+18 56.50 2.11,E+-18 57.00 2.iOE+18 57.50 2.09E+ 18 58.00 2.07E+18 58.50 2.06E+18 59.00 2.06E+ 18 59.50 2.06E+18 60.00 2.07E+ 18 60.50 2.07E+ 18 61.00 2.07E+18 61.50 2.08E+ 18 62.00 2.09E+ 18 62.50 2.11E+18 63.00 2.13E+18 Non-proprietary Version Azimuth Fluence (degrees)

(n/cm2-s) 63.50 2.15E+18 64.00 2.16E+ 18 64.50 2.19E+18 65.00 2.21E+18 65.50 2.23E+18 66.00 2.24E+ 18 66.50 2.26E+ 18 67.00 2.27E+18 67.50 2.30E+18 68.00 2.33E+18 68.50 2.39E+18 69.00 2.44E+ 18 69.50 2.51E+18 70.00 2.58E+ 18 70.50 2.67E+18 71.00 2.76E+ 18 71.50 2.86E+1;8 72.00 2.97E+18 72.50 3.09E+ 18 73.00 3.21 E+ 18 73.50 3.34E+ 18 74.00 3.47E+18 74.50 3.60E+18 75.00 3.73E+18 75.50 3.85E+18 76.00 3.96E+18 76.50 4.06E+18 77.00 4.17E+ 18 77.50 4.26E+ 18 78.00 4.37E+18 78.50 4.46E+18 Azimuth Fluencc (degrees)

(n/cm2-s) 79.00 4.55E+18 79.50 4.63E+ 18 80.00 4.71E+18 80.50 4.78E+18 81.00 4.84E+ 18 81.50 4.88E+18 82.00 4.92E+18 82.50 4.99E+18 83.00 5.07E+ 18 83.50 5.16E+18 84.00 5.25E+18 84.50 5.30E+18 85.00 5.35E+18 85.50 5.38E+18 86.00 5.39E+ 18 86.50 5.39E+18 87.00 5.37E+18 87.50 5.33E+18 88.00 5.27E+18 88.50 5.23E+18 89.00 5.20E+ 18 89.50 5.19E+1:8 89.88 5.19E+ 18

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 9 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Table 5 Azimuthal Distribution of 54-EFPY Fast Neutron Fluence at Shroud Inner Surface Azimuth Fiuence (degrees)

(nlcm 2-s) 0.13 4.74E+21 0.50 4.73E+21 1.00 4.73E+21 1.50 4.74E+21 2.00 4.75E+21 2.50 4.77E+21 3.00 4.78E+21 3.50 4.80E+21 4.00 4.82E+21 4.50 4.85E+21 5.00 4.87E+21 5.50 4.88E+21 6.00 4.90E+21 6.50 4.93E+21 7.00 4.93E+21 7.50 4.93E+21 8.00 4.93E+21 8.50 4.90E+21 9.00 4.85E+21 9.50 4.81E+21 10.00 4.75E+21 10.50 4.64E+21 11.00 4.52E+21 11.50 4.35E+21 12.00 4.15E+21 12.50 3.87E+21 13.00 3.50E+21 13.50 3.13E+21 14.00 2.77E+21 14.50 2.47E+21 15.00 2.18E+21 Azimuth Fluence (degrees)

(n/cm 2-s) 15.50 1.93E+21 16.00 1.70E+21 16.50 1.50E+21 17.00 1.35E+21 17.50 1.23E+21 18.00

1. 14E+21 18.50 1.07E+21 19.00 1.01E+21 19.50 9.72E+20 20.00 9.44E+20 20.50 9.26E+20 21.00 9.27E+20 21.50 9.21E+20 22.00 9.38E+20 22.50 9.54E+20 23.00 9.77E+20 23.50 1.01 E+21 24.00 1.04E+21 24.50 1.08E+21 25.00 1.13E+21 25.50 1.17E+21 26.00 1.23E+21 26.50 1.28E+21 27.00 1.34E+21 27.50 1.40E+21 28.00 1.45E+2 1 28.50 1.51E+21 29.00 1.56E+21 29.50 1.62E+21 30.00 1.65E+21 30.50 1.68E+21 Azimuth Fluence (degrees)

(n/cm2-s) 31.00 1.70E+21 31.50 1.70E+21 32.00 1.70E+21 32.50 1.66E+21 33.00 1.61E+21 33.50 1.54E+21 34.00 1.46E+21 34.50 1.38E+21 35.00 1.31E+21 35.50 1.25E1+21 36.00 1.18E+21 36.50 1.13E+21 37.00 1.07E+21 37.50 1.03E+21 38.00 9.97E+20 38.50 9.78E+20 39.00 9.59E+20 39.50 9.36E+20 40.00 9.41E+20 40.50 9.47E+20 41.00 9.47E+20 41.50 9.66E+20 42.00 9.79E+20 42.50 9.97E+20 43.00 1.01E+21 43.50 1.03E+21 44.00 1.05E+21 44.50 1.06E+21 45.00 1.06E+21 45.50 1.05E+21 46.00 1.0=5E+2 1

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 10 of 26 Azimuth Flucncc (degrees)

(n/cm 2-s) 46.50 1.03E+21 47.00 1.01E+21 47.50 9.93E+20 48.00 9.73E+20 48.50 9.60E+20 49.00 9.39E+20 49.50 9.39E+20 50.00 9.32E+20 50.50 9.26E+20 51.00 9.47E+20 51.50 9.65E+20 52.00 9.83E+20 52.50 I.OIE+21 53.00 1.05E+21 53.50

1. 1 IE+21 54.00

1. 16E+21 54.50 1.22E+21 55.00 1.29E+21 55.50 1.36E+21 56.00 1.44E+21 56.50 1.51E+21 57.00 1.58E+21 57.50 1.62E+21 58.00 1.67E+21 58.50 1.67E+2 1 59.00 1.66E+21 59.50 1.64E+21 60.00 1.61E+21 60.50 1.58E+21 61.00 1.53E+21 61.50 1.48E+21 62.00 1.42E+21 Non-proprietary Version Azimuth Fluence (degrees)

(n/cm 2-s) 62.50 1.37E+21 63.00 1.31E+21 63.50 1.25E+21 64.00 1.20E+2 1 64.50

1. 15E+21 65.00 I. 1 OE+21 65.50 1.06E+2 1 66.00 1.02E+2 1 66.50 9.83E+20 67.00 9.55E+20 67.50 9.32E+20 68.00 9.16E+20 68.50 8.99E+20 69.00 9.05E+20 69.50 9.04E+20 70.00 9.2 1E+20 70.50 9.47E+20 71.00 9.83E+20 71.50 1.04E+21 72.00

1. 1 !E+21 72.50

1. 19E+21 73.00 1.31E+21 73.50 1.45E+21 74.00 1.65E+21 74.50 1.87E+2 I 75.00 2.1 lE+21 75.50 2.39E+21 76.00 2.68E+2 1 76.50 3.03E+21 77.00 3.39E+21 77.50 3.74E+21 78.00 4.01 E+21 Azimuth Fluence (degrees)

(n/cm 2-s) 78.50 4.21E+21 79.00 4.37E+21 79.50 4.50E+21 80.00 4.60E+2 1 80.50 4.67E+21 81.00 4.71E+21 81.50 4.75E+21 82.00 4.78E+21 82.50 4.79E+21 83.00 4.79E+21 83.50 4.79E+21 84.00 4.76E+21 84.50 4.74E+21 85.00 4.73E+21 85.50 4.71E+21 86.00 4.69E+2 1 86.50 4.66E+21 87.00 4.65E+21 87.50 4.63E+21 88.00 4.61 E+21 88.50 4.60E+21 89.00 4.60E+21 89.50 4.59E+2 1 89.88 4.60E+21

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Page 11 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Figure 1. Azimuthal Distribution of Fast Neutron Flux at RPV Inner Surface at Peak Elevation I

[

1 T

11_

4[

N J

N

+ -V 0, MA 4 Ol*4UJ1I#

I i

i t

'44%

E Z

I' 2.5E+09 2.OE+09 1.5E+09 I 4E+09 5.OE+06 O.QE+00 f

r 1

1 F

F I

I F

[

4 0

10 20 30 40 50 80 Azimuth (degrees past Quadrant Reference) 70 80 90

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 12 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Figure 2. Axial Distribution of Fast Neutron Flux at RPV Inner Surface at Peak Azimuth 1.0 C

6L 0.1

-25 0

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Elevation Above BAF (Inches)

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 13 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Figure 3. Azimuthal Distribution of Fast Neutron Flux at Shroud Inner Surface at Peak Elevation 3.5E+12 3.OE.12 2.5E+12 2.OE.12 1.5E+12 C2.

Z I.OE+12 5.OE.1 I 0.OE+00 0

10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 Azimuth (degrees past Quadrant Reference) 90

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 14 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Figure 4. Axial Distribution of Fast Neutron Flux at Shroud Inner Surface at Peak Azimuth 1

0.1 a(

U-0.01 0.001

-25 0

25 50 75 100 125 150 Elvation Abo, RAF (inches) 175

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Page 15 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Figure S. Axial Distribution of Fast Neutron Fluence at RPV Inner Surface at Peak Azimuth 1.OE+19 E

0 z

I.OE.18 1.OE+17 1.OE+16 4-

-25 0

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 E~vatlo Above BAF Nldm u)

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Page 16 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Figure 6. Axial Distribution of Fast Neutron Fluence at Shroud Inner Surface at Peak Azimuth 1.OE+22 0

0 Z

z

-25 0

25 50 75 100 125 150 Elivatko Aboe BAF (knhes) 175

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Page 17 of 26 Non-proprietary Version References

1. "Licensing Topical Report, General Electric Methodology for Reactor Pressure Vessel Fast Neutron Flux Evaluations," NEDO-32983-A, Revision 2, January 2006.

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Non-proprietary Version Page 18 of 26 NRC Supplemental Reguest 3 Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 of the M+SAR refer to the containment dynamic loads. Please provide information regarding the plant-specific analyses that were performed to assess the containment dynamic loads. This information should include details regarding the analysis, including: (1) the methods used, (2) assumptions made, and (3) numerical results. Since comparisons are made between MELLLA+ and EPU operation please provide equivalent information for both. For the safety relief valve analysis, please include discussion of postulated, limiting design-basis accident conditions. The discussion should address vessel pressurization under certain loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) scenarios.

GEH Response 4.1.3 Containment Dynamic Loads - LOCA Loads. Subcompartment Pressurization The MELLLA+ LOCA containment hydrodynamic loads assessment included the following:

Pool swell (PS)

Vent thrust Condensation Oscillation (CO)

Chugging (CH)

These loads have been defined generically for Mark I plants as part of the Mark I containment program, and are described in detail in the Mark I Containment Load Definition Report (LDR)

(Reference 1). The LDR was reviewed and approved by the NRC in NUREG-0661 (References 2 and 3). The specific application of these loads to Monticello is described in Reference 4.

The MELLLA+ containment hydrodynamic loads evaluations for Vent Thrust, Pool Swell, and Condensation Oscillation loads are based on LAMB/M3CPT computer code runs. The LAMB code (References 5 and 6) is used to generate Recirculation Suction Line Break (RSLB) mass and energy release profiles while the M3CPT code (References 7 and 8) is used to generate containment pressure and temperature responses and vent system response.

Three power flow points are considered in the MELLLA+ containment hydrodynamic loads evaluation which envelope operation with MELLLA+ region. The power flow conditions that are considered arc:

P/F Map Point Power*

Flow Dome Pressure (psia)

E 102.0%

100.0%

1040 L

102.0%

80.0%

1040 M

84.15%

57.4%

1040 Percent of EPU Rated Thermal Power of 2004 MWt. All cases include the 10 CFR 50 Appendix K instrument error for reactor power.

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Page 19 of 26 Non-proprietary Version LAMB/M3CPT Containment Response Analysis Assumptions The assumptions below arc typical for Mark I short-term design basis accident (DBA)-LOCA analyses with the GEH M3CPT containment model with the use of LAMB generated break flows.

Assu~mption Refe'ritce/Basis The initial reactor power corresponds to Current license basis 102% of the operating power.

A complete loss of normal AC power occurs A time delay time for operation of the simultaneously with the pipe break.

emergency core cooling system (ECCS) beyond the analysis time period (30 seconds);

no ECCS operation.

A recirculation suction line is severed This results in the most rapid drywell instantly at the nozzle safe end to the pipe pressurization rate.

weld.

The reactor scrams at the time of accident Current license basis initiation.

The feedwater flow rate coasts down to zero Current license basis in 5 seconds.

The decay heat correlation used in the Same as conservative Appendix K assumption LAMB mass and energy release model is for ECCS-LOCA.

based on the 1971 ANS 5 + 20% decay heat model. (IOCFR50 App. K).

The main steam isolation valves start closing A short closure time retains more water at 0.5 seconds. They are fully closed in 3 inventory for blowdown to the drywell.

seconds following closure initiation.

The LAMB mass and energy release The use of the more detailed LAMB break analysis used to recalculate containment flow for evaluation of EPU containment hydrodynamic loads in the EPU analysis dynamic loads analyses is identified in uses the homogenous equilibrium model Appendix G of Reference 6. The use of The (HEM) critical flow model.

HEM critical flow model is the basis for the containment response analyses used to define the Monticello dynamic loads in Reference 9.

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Page 20 of 26 Non-proprietary Version Assmp, ons For the LAMB mass and energy release The containment response profiles that are analyses used to identify the limiting power-used in the dynamic loads evaluation are based flow conditions in the MELLLA+ and EPU on mass and energy release rates generated analysis, the Moody's slip critical flow with the Moody slip critical flow model model is employed, instead of the HEM critical flow model. (The HEM critical flow model is the basis for the Monticello dynamic load analyses.) The subject mass and energy release rates are conservative for evaluations that are based on direct comparisons to design basis limits. The sensitivity of the results generated with the Moody-slip model to changes in power-flow condition is representative of the sensitivity of the results generated with the HEM model to changes in power-flow condition. Load results generated with the Moody-slip model arc used to identify the limiting power flow condition in both the MELLLA+ and EPU analyses.

The initial drywell relative humidity is the Maximizes the amount of non-condensable minimum expected value of 20%.

gas in the drywell and maximizes the pressure response.

The vent flow is based on a homogeneous Standard assumption.

mixture of the fluid in the drywell.

Thermodynamic equilibrium exists between Standard assumption.

the pool and airspace within the suppression chamber.

The initial suppression pool volume is at the This assumption maximizes the drywell high water level value, pressure.

Minimum wetwell airspace volume is This assumption maximizes the drywell assumed.

pressure.

No heat loss occurs from the fluids to This assumption maximizes the drywell containment structures (heat sinks),

pressure and temperature.

The LAMB generated mass and energy The open line results in an increase in the pipe release model includes the impact of the side mass and energy releases. The increased open cross-tie line between recirculation mass and energy releases result in increased loops.

containment dynamic loads.

The initial suppression pool and wvetwell The value is identical to the Reference 9 Mark I temperatures are set to 77.5°F.

DBA-LOCA load evaluation value and consistent with direction in Reference I The initial drywell and wetwell pressures are The value is identical to the Reference 9 Mark I set to 15.45 psia.

DBA-LOCA load evaluation value.

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. I Non-proprietary Version Page 21 of 26 Vent Thrust Loads Vent thrust loads occur as a result of non-condensable gases and steam being discharged from the drywell, via the vents/downcomers, to the suppression pool which produces pressure imbalances and momentum forces on the vent system. The maximum vent thrust forces occur for the DBA-LOCA and therefore are calculated using the recirculation suction line break DBA-LOCA containment response.

The MELLLA+ vent thrust loads evaluation is a quantitative evaluation based on LAMB generated DBA-LOCA RSLB mass and energy releases, M3CPT-generated containment responses and the application of the vent thrust equations documented in Reference I and previously used to define the Monticello vent thrust loads in Reference 9. The vent thrust calculations were used to determine vent thrust loads for the main vent, vent header, and miter bends as described in Reference 1.

The results of the MELLLA+ calculations demonstrate that the vent thrust loads for the 102% EPU Power / 100% rated core flow condition are bounding for operation in the MELLLA+ region. A similar study for the EPU project demonstrated that the vent thrust loads for the 102% EPU power /

Increased Core Flow (ICF) condition are bounding for all 102% EPU power conditions. Based on the results of the MELLLA+ and EPU studies, the MELLLA+ evaluation concluded that the vent thrust loads calculated in the EPU evaluation for the 102% EPU power / ICF condition are bounding for operation in the MELLLA+ region of the power flow map. The EPU evaluation also demonstrated that the vent thrust loads, for the 102% EPU power / ICF condition, are bounded by the loads documented in the Monticello Plant Unique Load Definition (PULD) (Reference 9).

Pool Swell Loads Pool swell describes the initial containment response following a LOCA. The DBA event for pool swell for the Monticello Mark I containment is a double-ended break of a recirculation suction line.

The liquid mass flow, which initially flows from the break, flashes to steam and pressurizes the drywell. The drywell pressurization expels the water in the vents, which forms jets in the suppression pool and causes loads on the structures on the bends in the vent, as well as near the vent exit.

Following the expulsion of the water (vent clearing), the non-condensable gases initially in the drywell are forced through the vents/downcomers into the suppression pool and expand as a bubble under the pool surface at each vent/downcomer exit location. The expansion forces the slug of water above the air bubble to accelerate upward, which causes both impact loads on structures initially above the pool surface and drag loads as the water slug flows past the submerged structures. The expansion also produces loads on the suppression pool boundaries. The water slug rises to a peak height at which point the air bubble breaks through the water surface and the water slug collapses.

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Non-proprietary Version Page 22 of 26 The loads that occur include the torus vertical loads and shell pressures, impact and drag (i.e.,

standard and acceleration drag) loads on the vent system and structures, froth and pool fallback loads, bubble drag loads on submerged structures, and the submerged structure jet loads. These loads are controlled by the drywell pressure-time history during pool swell.

The Monticello pool swell loads are defined in Reference 9 based on the Reference 11 and 12 Quarter Scale Test Facility (QSTF) tests. The MELLLA+ pool swell loads evaluation is a quantitative evaluation based on LAMB generated RSLB mass and energy releases and M3CPT-generated containment responses. The impact of MELLLA+ on the pool swell load is primarily determined from the predicted initial drywell pressurization rate to the time of vent clearing. The predicted initial drywell pressurization rate with MELLLA+ was compared with the pressurization rate used for the plant-specific QSTF tests, which defined the Monticello plant specific pool swell loads. The quarter-scale pressurization rate used in the QSTF test was 37.9 psi/see, which corresponds to 72.5 psi/see on a full-scale basis.

For the MELLLA+ evaluation, conservative estimates of the drywcll pressurization rates were developed using LAMB/M3CPT methods and the Moody-slip break critical flow model. Results of the LAMB/M3CPT runs demonstrated that the drywell pressurization rate to the time of vent clearing for the 102% EPU power / 100% rated core flow condition is bounding for operation in the MELLLA+ region of the power flow map. The conservative estimate of the drywell pressurization rate to the time of vent clearing for the 102% EPU power / 100% rated core flow condition was 66.51 psi/see. This is bounded by the full-scale drywell pressurization rate corresponding to the plant specific pressurization rate used in the QSTF tests (72.5 psi/see).

A similar study performed for the EPU analysis demonstrated that the drywell pressurization rate to the time of vent clearing for the 102% EPU power / ICF condition is bounding for all 102% EPU power cases. Based on the results of the MELLLA+ and EPU studies, the MELLLA+ evaluation concluded that the drywell pressurization rate to the time of vent clearing calculated in the EPU evaluation for the 102% EPU power / ICF condition is bounding for operation in the MELLLA+

region of the power flow map. The EPU evaluation also demonstrated that the drywell pressurization rate to the time of vent clearing, for the 102% EPU power / ICF condition, is bounded by the full-scale drywcll pressurization rate corresponding to the plant-specific pressurization rate used in the QSTF tests.

Condensation Oscillation Loads Condensation Oscillation (CO) loads result from oscillation of the steam-water interface that forms at the vent exit during the region of vent high steam mass flow rate. The CO loads occur after pool swell. The basis for the generic Mark I CO load definition, used to define the Monticello CO load, is the Load Definition Report (LDR, Reference I). The Mark I CO load definition was developed from test data from the Full Scale Test Facility (FSTF) tests (Reference 13). These tests were designed to

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Non-proprietary Version Page 23 of 26 simulate LOCA thermal-hydraulic conditions (i.e., vent steam mass flux, air content and suppression pool temperature) during chugging, which are bounding for all U.S. Mark I plants, including Monticello.

The effect of changes in thermal hydraulic conditions on CO loads was quantified with the use of a relationship, which correlates the torus CO wall pressure root-mean-square (Pms) to the vent to thermal-hydraulic conditions controlling the CO pressure load including steam mass and energy flux rates, containment pressures and suppression pool temperature. This correlation was developed from a review of the Reference 13 FSTF CO data. The value for PRMS, which is calculated with this correlation using the results of an M3CPT simulation of the FSTF test, is used to establish a Mark I CO load baseline.

For the MELLLA+ evaluation, the correlation was applied to calculate the time-dependent CO PRos for the LAMB/M3CPT containment responses developed using the Moody-slip break critical flow model. Results of the evaluation demonstrated that the peak CO Pnis value for the 102% EPU power

/ 100% rated core flow condition is bounding for operation in the MELLLA+ region of the power flow map. The conservative MELLLA+ estimate of the peak CO Pums value for the 102% EPU power / 100% rated core flow condition was compared to, and found to be bounded by, the value for PRMs, which is calculated with this correlation using the results of an M3CPT simulation of the FSTF test.

A similar study performed for the EPU analysis demonstrated that the peak CO PRMS value for the 102% EPU power / ICF condition is bounding for 102% EPU power conditions. Based on the results of the MELLLA+ and EPU studies, the MELLLA+ evaluation concluded that the peak CO PRMs value calculated in the EPU evaluation for the 102% EPU power / ICF condition is bounding for operation in the MELLLA+ region of the power flow map. The EPU evaluation also demonstrated that the peak CO PRmS value for the 102% EPU power / ICF condition is bounded by the PRMs, which is calculated with this correlation using the results of an M3CPT simulation of the FSTF test, thus revalidating the Monticello CO load definition.

Chuggina Loads Chugging occurs subsequent to CO. Chugging loads result from the collapse of steam bubbles that form at the vent exit and can be influenced by vent steam mass flux, vent flow air content, and pool temperature. Chugging begins when the steam mass flux through the vents is below a minimum threshold value (approximately 6.5 lb/sec-fe) required to maintain a steady steam-liquid interface at the vent exit. This means that chugging occurs at the tail end of a DBA or intermediate break accident (IBA) or anytime during a small break accident (SBA) with the reactor at pressure. The design loads for Monticello are in accordance with the LDR (Reference 1) load definition and are also based on the Reference 13 test data. The range of conditions used in the FSTF tests were established to bound all Mark I plants. The Mark I chugging load definition thus represents an envelope of the

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Non-proprietary Version Page 24 of 26 data from the tests. Chugging loads include loads on the suppression pool boundary and submerged structures and vent (downcomer) lateral loads.

The Mark I FSTF test program (Reference 13) investigated chugging loads for the range of expected conditions associated with the spectrum of LOCA break sizes (i.e., DBA through SBA) that arc applicable to Mark I plants. The thermal-hydraulic conditions for the FSTF tests (i.e., steam mass flux, air content, and suppression pool temperature) were designed to produce blowdown and containment conditions, which bound all Mark I plants and maximize chugging amplitudes with a Mark I containment geometry. MELLLA+ operation does not expand the range of steam mass flux, suppression pool temperature, and air content beyond the FSTF test conditions used to define the chugging load. Therefore, the current chugging load definitions remain applicable at MELLLA+

conditions.

4.1.4 Containment Dynamic Loads - Safety Relief Valve (SRV) Loads The basis for the M+LTR (Reference 10) generic SRV load disposition was confirmed to be applicable to Monticello.

Section 4.1 of the M+LTR (Reference 10) provides the following generic disposition for the impact of MELLLA+ on long-term suppression pool temperature response and SRV loads;

((i For the Monticello MELLLA+ project, the M+LTR generic disposition is applicable since there are no changes to reactor power, dome pressure or SRV setpoints.

The MELLLA+ generic disposition is applicable to both first and second-actuation loads.

First actuation loads arc influenced by parameters such as safety relief valve discharge line (SRVDL) geometry, torus geometry, water leg length, and SRV flow rate, which is linearly proportional to the SRV opening pressure. Since the SRV opening sctpoint pressure remains unchanged for MELLLA+,

SRV first actuation loads are unaffected by MELLLA+ implementation.

Second actuation loads are also impacted by the reactor pressurization rate following the initial closure of the SRV. Following the closure of the SRV, the steam in the discharge line condenses and creates a negative pressure in the pipe. The negative pressure causes the water to rcflood the discharge line above its initial level. Subsequent SRV actuation may then result in higher loads due to the higher initial water level in the SRVDL.

The SRV low-low set logic has been incorporated at Monticello to ensure subsequent actuations occurring after the water level in the SRVDL returns to normal. An evaluation performed for the

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Page 25 of 26 Non-proprietary Version EPU project demonstrated that the existing SRV low-low set logic will continue to ensure the SRVDL line water level returns to normal (less than 6 seconds) prior to the second SRV actuation following EPU implementation (at approximately 12 seconds). For MELLLA+, the reactor pressurization rate is not affected since both decay heat and sensible heat do not change as a result of MELLLA+ implementation. Since the pressurization rate is not affected by MELLLA+

implementation, there will be no impact on the timing of the second SRV actuation.

References I

"Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," NEDO-21888, Revision 2, Class I, November 1981.

2 NUREG-0661, "Safety Evaluation Report, MARK I Containment Long Term Program, Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7," July 1980.

3 NUREG-066 1, Supplement 1, "Safety Evaluation Report, MARK I Containment Long Term 1 Program, Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7," August 1982.

4 "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Unique Analysis Report," NSP-74-(101, 102, 103, 104, 105), Nutech Document, Revision 1, November 1982.

5 "General Electric Company Analytical Model for Loss-of-Coolant Analysis in Accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix K," NEDO-20566A, Revision 0, Class I, September 1986.

6 "Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate,"

NEDC-32424P-A, February 1999.

7 "The GE Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model," NEDO-10320, Revision 0, Class 1, April 1971.

8 "The General Electric Mark III Pressure Suppression Containment System Analytical Model,"

NEDO-20533, Revision 0, Class 1, June 1974.

9 "Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition Monticello Nuclear Power Plant,"

NEDO-24576, Revision 1, Class I, October 1981.

10 "Licensing Topical Report, General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus," NEDO-33006-A, Class I, Revision 3, June 2009.

1i "Mark I Containment Program Quarter Scale Pressure Suppression Pool Swell Test Program:

Supplemental Plant Unique Tests," NEDO-24615, Revision 0, Class 1, June 1980.

12

"'Mark I Containment Program Quarter Scale Plant Unique Tests," NEDO-21944, Revision 0, Class 1, June 1979.

13 "Mark I Containment Program Full Scale Test Program Final Report, Task Number 5.11,"

NEDO-24539, Revision 0, Class 1, June 1979.

GEH MNGP-AEP-1687, Rev. 1 Non-proprietary Version Page 26 of 26 NRC Supplemental Reauest 4 Section 4.3.5 of the M+SAR discusses the core wide metal water reaction. This section states that the limiting LOCA scenario is calculated to result in I percent core wide metal water reaction. This value is equal to the 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criterion of I percent. Since the calculated value is equal to the acceptance criterion, the NRC staff needs more detailed information regarding the plant-specific LOCA calculations to begin its review.

GEH Response The statement in the Section 4.3.5 has a typo. The core wide metal water reaction should have been rendered as "< MI".

The calculated value from SAFER for this term is ((

)).