LR-N17-0170, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request for Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate
| ML17333A853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/2017 |
| From: | Carr E Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17333A851 | List: |
| References | |
| CAC MF9930, LAR H17-03, LR-N17-0170 | |
| Download: ML17333A853 (21) | |
Text
NOV 27 2017 LR-N1 7-01 70 LAR H 1 7-03 Contains Proprietary Information to be Withheld from Public Disclosure Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390 PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 1 0 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hope Creek Generating Station Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 NRC Docket No. 50-354
Subject:
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY RECAPTURE POWER UPRATE (CAC NO. MF9930)
References 1. PSEG letter to NRC, "License Amendment Request for Measurement Uncertainty Recapture (MUR) Power Uprate," dated July 7, 201 7 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17188A260)
- 2. NRC e-mail to PSEG, "Hope Creek MUR - Final Request for Additional Information," dated October 1 7, 201 7 (ADAMS Accession No. ML172908013)
In the Reference 1 letter, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) submitted a license amendment request for Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS). The proposed amendment will increase the rated thermal power (RTP) level from 3840 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3902 MWt, and make Technical Specification (TS) changes as necessary to support operation at the uprated power level.
In the Reference 2, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff provided PSEG a Request for Additional Information (RAI) to support the NRC staff's detailed technical review of Reference 1.
This letter provides the requested information in Attachment 1 (Non-Proprietary) and (Proprietary).
Page 2 LR-N17-0170 Contains Proprietary Information to be Withheld from Public Disclosure Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390 10 CFR 50.90 contains proprietary information as defined by 1 0 CFR 2.390. GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC (GEH), as the owner of the proprietary information, has executed an affidavit (provided in Attachment 2) identifying that the proprietary information has been handled and classified as proprietary, is customarily held in confidence, and has been withheld from public disclosure. GEH requests that the proprietary information in Attachment 3 be withheld from public disclosure, in accordance with the requirements of 1 0 CFR 2.390(a)(4).
PSEG has determined that the information provided in this submittal does not alter the conclusions reached in the 10 CFR 50.92 no significant hazards determination previously submitted. In addition, the information provided in this submittal does not affect the bases for concluding that neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.
No new regulatory commitments are established by this submittal. If you have any q uestions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Brian Thomas at (856) 339-2022.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on Ll/?7/17 (Date)
NOV 27 2017 Page 3 LR-N17-0170 Attachments Contains Proprietary Information to be Withheld from Public Disclosure Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390 10 CFR 50.90 1. Response to SNPB Request for Additional Information Regarding MUR Power Uprate Non-Proprietary (GEH Reference DOC-0006-01 06-086 Attachment 2)
- 3. Response to SNPB Request for Additional Information Regarding MUR Power Uprate GEH Proprietary Information (GEH Reference DOC-0006-01 06-086 Attachment 1 )
cc:
Mr. D. Dorman, Administrator, Region I, NRC Ms. L. Regner, Project Manager, NRC NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Hope Creek Mr. P. Mulligan, Chief, NJBNE Mr. L. Marabella, Corporate Commitment Tracking Coordinator Mr. T. MacEwen, Hope Creek Commitment Tracking Coordinator LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03 Response to SNPB Request for Additional Information Regarding MUR Power Uprate Non-Proprietary This is the non-proprietary version of Attachment 3 of this letter which has the proprietary information removed. Portions of the document that have been removed are indicated by white space inside open and closed brackets as shown here ((
)).
(GEH Reference DOC-0006-0106-086 Attachment 2)
LR-N17-0170 SNPB-1 LAR H17-03 Title 1 0 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR), part 50, appendix A, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," criterion 1 0 (i.e., GDC 1 0) states, "The reactor core and associated coolant, control, and protection systems shall be designed with appropriate margin to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded during any condition of normal operation, including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences."
In order to provide assurance that 99.9 percent of the fuel rods in the core do not enter transition boiling in the event of an anticipated operational occurrence, the safety limit (SL) minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) is established as a specified acceptable fuel design limit.
The SLMCPR is a limit placed on the critical power ratio (CPR). If a fuel rod has a CPR of 1.0, it would be predicted to enter transition boiling. The SLMCPR provides a margin to account for uncertainties associated with the correlation used to estimate the critical power ratio (CPR),
small variations in the pin-and bundle-radial power distribution in the core, and instrument monitoring.
The uncertainties associated with the methods used to estimate the effect of small variations in the radial power distribution in the core are sensitive to the void conditions in the fuel bundles.
This sensitivity is evaluated for plants operating in high-bundle-power, high-exit-void-fraction conditions in General Electric - Hitachi (GEH) Licensing Topical Report (L TR) NEDC-331 73P-A, Revision 4, "Applicability of GE Methods to Expanded Operating Domains" (ADAMS Package No. ML123130130). This report, which is approved for use by the NRC staff, is also known as the Interim Methods L TR (IML TR).
Figures 2-1, 2-3, and 2-4 of the Thermal Power Optimization (TPO) Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) indicate that challenging void conditions may exist at HCNGS upon implementation of the measurement uncertainty recapture uprate (MUR) (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17188A263 (publicly available) and ML17188A270 (proprietary)). First, HCNGS is predicted to have bundle power levels that are higher than the other plants shown in the experiential database. Second, the bundle exit void fractions are similarly high, approaching 90 percent.
Justify the application of the nuclear and thermal-hydraulic design uncertainties in the GESTAR-11 analytic process without the IML TR penalties that are required of plants that operate in the high bundle power, high maximum channel exit void fraction conditions that appear to be associated with the HCNGS MUR. In particular, the plots shown indicate that HCNGS will be operating with bundle exit void conditions that would require the application of the penalty suggested by Limitation 5 as contained in the IML TR. A comparison of the attributes, displayed in the figures listed above, to other plants operating with qualitatively similar characteristics (e.g., domestically licensed, Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis, Extended Power Uprate, Thermal Power Optimization) would suffice for this purpose.
Provide evidence that, in light of the significantly different operating conditions between extended power uprate implementation and MUR, the dispositions contained in the TPO L TR (TL TR, i.e., NEDC-32938P-A, "Generic Guidelines and Evaluations for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Thermal Power Optimization" (ADAMS Package No.
2 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03 ML17076A207)) relative to fuel design, operation, and thermal margin assessment, are applicable. Analytic results of two or several potentially limiting anticipated operational occurrences in the MUR operating conditions may provide such evidence.
SNPB-1 RESPONSE :
As stated in the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) TSAR (Reference 1 -1 ) Appendix A dispositions of the IML TR (Reference 1 -2) limitations, neither Limitation and Condition (L&C) 9.4
'SLMCPR 1' nor L&C 9.5 'SLMCPR 2' apply to HCGS at MURITPO conditions.
IML TR L&C 9.5 specifically applies to plants licensed to operate in the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) domain. The HCGS TSAR does not include a MELLLA+ domain. IML TR L&C 9.4 was removed in IML TR Revision 4.
The additional cycle-to-cycle variation comparison information (IML TR L&C 9.24 figures) with a similar plant is provided below in the response to SNPB-1 Bullet 1.
As stated in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the TL TR (Reference 1 -3), the transient analysis results are not presented in the TSAR, but rather are deferred to the cycle-specific evaluation presented in the Supplemental Reload Licensing Report (SRLR) that implements MURITPO. HCGS Cycle 22 is the planned cycle to implement MURITPO conditions.
The limiting transient information for HCGS Cycle 22 is provided below in response to SNPB-1 Bullet 2.
SNPB-1 RESPONSE (BULLET 1 ):
The operating conditions between Current Licensed Thermal Power {CTLP) and MURITPO are not significantly different. The observed trends are consistent with 1 8-month cycle length core design performance and within existing cycle-to-cycle variation.
As shown in HCGS TSAR Figure 2-1 through Figure 2-6 supporting the IML TR L&C 9.24 disposition, the HCGS TSAR equilibrium (EQ) core design with all GNF2 fuel is very similar to the HCGS CL TP EQ core design with all GNF2 fuel. These results can also be compared in the same figures to the HCGS Cycle 20 reload licensing analysis at CL TP with all GE1 4 fuel and the HCGS Cycle 21 reload licensing analysis at CL TP with the first reload of GNF2 fuel. These HCGS specific data series demonstrate that the cycle-to-cycle variation in the plotted parameters are not very sensitive to the effects of the MURITPO change. The sensitivity is driven by the specifics of the core design and the supported bundle powers of the fuel product line that can achieve acceptable design margins and maintain compliance to the Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs ).
Comparison to other plants in the fleet continues to demonstrate maximum bundle powers are less than 8 MW and maximum exit void fractions are less than 90o/o.
To aid in the comparison of cycle-to-cycle variation, the HCGS data (IML TR L&C 9.24 figures) for the reload licensing analysis for the last 1 0 cycles (since the first reload of GE1 4 fuel in Cycle 1 3) is shown with the GNF2 equilibrium data at CL TP and MURITPO conditions in 3 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03 Table 1 -1 and in Figures 1 -1 through 1 -6 in this Request for Additional Information (RAI) response. The first reload of GNF2 at HCGS was in Cycle 21. The HCGS CLTP condition was implemented in Cycle 1 5. The planned MUR!TPO implementation at HCGS is in Cycle 22.
To offer a comparison of cycle-to-cycle variation with a similar plant (BWR/4 type with an 1 8-month cycle and a 764 bundle core size), the last five cycles of the Plant X reload licensing analysis with GE1 4 fuel is also shown in Table 1 -1 and in Figures 1 -1 through 1 -6.
The overall trends with power level and fuel product line are indistinguishable between the last 1 0 cycles of data at HCGS and in comparison, to the last 5 cycles of data at Plant X.
GNF2 fuel can operate with a higher bundle power than GE1 4 (because of a higher Thermal Mechanical Operating Limit (TMOL) definition) and be compliant with margins to the SAFDLs.
However, GE1 4 fuel can also have higher exit void fractions than GNF2 fuel with a lower bundle power when the in-channel flows are lower.
Based upon the comparative information provided in response to this RAI, implementation of the MUR!TPO at HCGS does not introduce any new conditions outside the operating experience relative to the application of the existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved nuclear and thermal-hydraulic design uncertainties in the GESTAR II (Reference 1 -4) analytical process.
SNPB-1 RESPONSE (BULLET 2):
Results from the HCGS Cycle 21 Anticipated Operational Occurrences (AOO) analyses performed at 3,840 MWt were compared to HCGS Cycle 22 AOO analyses performed at 3,902 MWt. Table 1 -2 provides the uncorrected Delta Critical Power Ratio (DCPR) results for the potentially limiting Load Rejection No Bypass (LRNBP) and Turbine Trip No Bypass (TTNBP) cases for both End of Cycle (EOC) and Middle of Cycle (MOC) exposures including consideration of operation at the low and high core flow points supported by the HCGS Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) and Increased Core Flow (ICF) operating flexibility options.
The DCPR results for the LRNBP and TTNBP EOC and MOC cases show up to approximately a 0.01 improvement for Cycle 22 at 3,902 MWt versus Cycle 21 at 3,840 MWt, except for the TTNBP MELLLA case at MOC which shows a very slight increase in DCPR for the Cycle 22 3,902 MWt case. All limiting cases for the events and conditions being considered show less than a 0.01 change in DCPR. These changes are very small and within the cycle to cycle variation expected due to exposure and power shape changes. The DCPR results do not indicate that there is a trend of improved results for MURITPO conditions. This demonstrates that there is no significant difference in transient analysis thermal margin results with the HCGS MURITPO power increase and confirms the validity of the generic disposition for AOOs contained in the TPO L TR.
4 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 Table 1-1 EOC Peak Nodal Exposure Plant Cycle Plant X Cycle 1 5 RLA (GE1 4) 1 5 Plant X Cycle 1 6 RLA (GE1 4) 1 6 Plant X Cycle 1 7 RLA (GE1 4) 1 7 Plant X Cycle 1 8 RLA (GE1 4) 1 8 Plant X Cycle 1 9 RLA (GE1 4) 1 9 HCGS Cycle 1 3 RLA (GE1 4/SVEA96) 1 3 HCGS Cycle 1 4 RLA (GE1 4/SVEA96) 1 4 HCGS Cycle 1 5 RLA (GE1 4/SVEA96) 1 5 HCGS Cycle 1 6 RLA (GE1 4) 1 6 HCGS Cycle 1 7 RLA (GE14) 1 7 HCGS Cycle 1 8 RLA (GE1 4) 1 8 HCGS Cycle 1 9 RLA (GE14) 1 9 HCGS Cycle 20 RLA (GE1 4) 20 HCGS Cycle 21 RLA (GNF2/GE1 4) 21 HCGS Cycle 22 RLA (GNF2/GE1 4) 22 HCGS CL TP EQ (GNF2)
EQ - 1 1 6.6o/o HCGS TSAR EQ (GNF2)
EQ - 1 1 8.6%>
5 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 Peak Nodal Exposure (GWd/ST) 54.987 54.646
- 55. 1 34 55.025 54.835 47.060 51. 1 59 55.950 55.433 55.694 55.722 56.645 55.51 6 56.268 56.549 55.478 54.523 LR-N17-0170 Transient Flow LRNBP ICF LRNBP MELLLA TTNBP ICF TTNBP MELLLA LRNBP ICF LRNBP MELLLA TTNBP ICF TTNBP MELLLA Table 1-2 Comparison of AOO Analysis Results Cycle Cycle Change Cycle 22 21 22 Exposure DCPR DCPR C22-DCPR GNF2 GNF2 C21 GE14 EOC 0.2876 0.2930
-0.0054 0.2601 EOC 0.2701 0.281 9
-0.01 1 8 0.2639 EOC 0.2787 0.2835
-0.0048 0.2508 EOC 0.2677 0.2801
-0.0124 0.2591 MOC 0.2700 0.2727
-0.0027 0.2503 MOC 0.2696 0.2702
-0.0006 0.2461 MOC 0.2614 0.2642
-0.0028 0.2407 MOC 0.261 5 0.2608
+0.0007 0.2376 6 of 1 4 LAR H17-03 Cycle Change 21 DCPR C22-GE14 C21 0.2658
-0.0057 0.2693
-0.0054 0.2554
-0.0046 0.2651
-0.0060 0.2535
-0.0032 0.2468
-0.0007 0.2436
-0.0029 0.2362
+0.001 4 LR-N17-0170 8.0 7.5 7.0
~
(I) 9 0
6.5 a..
(I) c m
E 6.0 E
- x (lj
- E 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 0
'"'"*"""'*'*"*Plant X Cycle 15 RLA (GE14)
'Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 14 RlA (GE141SVEA96)
-HCGS Cycle 17 RlA(GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 20 RlA (GE14}
4 6
- Plant X Cycle 16 RLA(GE14}
"'"'"'"Plant X Cycle 19 RLA (GE14}
-HCGS Cycle 15 RlA (GE141SVEA96)
-HCGS Cycle 18 RlA(GE14)
-+-HCGS Cycle 21 RlA (GNF2/GE14)
10 Cycle Exposure (GWdlST) 12 LAR H17-03
- Plant X Cycle 17 RLA(GE14)
""""-HCGS Cycle 13 RlA (GE14/SVEA96)
-HCGS Cycle 16 RlA(GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 19 RlA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 22 RlA (GNF2/GE14) 14 16 18 Figure 1-1 Maximum Bundle Power versus Cycle Exposure 7 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03
.r::.
e 0
"C c
- J m
Q) 9 0
c..
8 (tl Q) c..
0 u:::
12,----------** ** *
- * * *********...........................................,........ -....,_,.,.. ______, ___..,,....... -..... -.. ----r **----------*--------**--,-*-****-* ------***-..,
11 10 9
8 7 +****--**-**--**--*.. ******.. *--t***............................... jr**-***--****.... -*-******--t*********-******-***-.. --t-----*-*---*-**-*i-----*--**---**-+*----*-**--**-*-*.. -*.. ***--t*.. ***----*.. ******-*********-*1***-****-------------*-1 6
""'"""'"Plant X Cycle 15 RLA (GE14)
- '""""*"*""'"Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 14 RLA (GE14/SVEA96}
....-HCGS Cycle 17 RLA (GE14)
"* '"**Plant X Cycle 16 RLA (GE14)
"'""4**m*"PiantX Cycle 19 RLA(GE14}
-HCGS Cycle 15 RLA (GE14/SVEA96}
-HCGS Cycle 18 RLA(GE14)
¥HCGS Cycle 21 RLA (GNF21GE14)
- ** Plant X Cycle 17 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 13 RLA (GE14/SVEA913)
.....,HCGS Cycle 16 RLA (GE14)
.....,HCGS Cycle 19 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 22 RLA (GNF21GE14) 5 +--
0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST)
Figure 1-2 Coolant Flow for Peak Power Bundle versus Cycle Exposure 8 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03 G)
- 0 c
- J Ol
a..
..lll:
(IS G) a..
a..
.2 c
0
)
E u..
'"C
- g 0.86 0.84 0.82 +*-***--*.. **---*.. *-*-**1--*-**--****--*--*---+-*--*-*-----*----*--+*----------------+*----.. -----------if-----*-*--*---***--******-r
0.80 +-********--*-***********-+*.. --***----*****-*******-+*----*--**--*--*¥---*---****----*-*---+--*-*---*--**-**--*!*--****--**----***-*+*****¢---*******.. -*******-+*-****-***---*----****--***+-*.. *-----*----*---£
}
0.78 1*-**-***-*-**--*******-i***--*****-****-*-****-+-*-*----**--***----*-*******-*-*******-**--*-**-r-*----*---*---+--*--*---***-------l---*****--***********-**.. *****+.. ***-***-******--*------+-----*--------******l w
0.76 +*************'"'""""'"'""""'"-t""""""'"""'"""'"""""+'""""'"""""*'*""""'""+"'""""'"""""'""-*--+---**--**"-"""-"'"""""""""""'""""""+""""""'"'""'"""-"'"+"'"'"""""-"""---+*-*-.. """'"'""""'""'-"'"'l 0.74 +................................ +--------*---'""'"'""""-"'!"'""'"""'"'"'"'""'"'"'"""'"-----*----*--------**+---------------------+---*---------*---""""""'""+--------*--**---------------*+---**----------------*------*+------*----*-----*-----l 0.72
'"""*Plant X Cycle 15 RLA (GE14)
,,.,,,,,,,,,,,.plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 14 RLA (GE14/SVEA96}
-..HCGSCycle 17RLA(GE14}
lHCGS Cycle 20 RLA (GE14)
- m'""/Piant X Cycle 16 RLA (GE14)
'""&*Plant X Cycle 19 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 15 RLA (GE14/SVEA96)
-HCGS Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
..,..._HCGS Cycle 21 RLA (GNF2/GE14}
í*1>'!*-HCGS TSAR EQ Plant X Cycle 17 RLA (GE14)
-"--HCGS Cycle 13 RLA (GE14JSVEA96)
-HCGS Cycle 22 RLA (GNF2JGE14) 0.70 +--
0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST)
Figure 1-3 Exit Void Fraction for Peak Power Bundle versus Cycle Exposure 9 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 c
0.86 0
- g E
LL 0.84 "C
[
- x w
0.82 +-********-***-********--+-****-- ******-**-*--*-+-**-*-*-**--**--********i--*-**-****-***.. -*---*--*+*----.. -------*--*+--.................................,.:
(i) c LAR H17-03 c
Ill
..c
(.)
0.80 +............. _............... -j---------.. *---.... -f-.................................. j....... _,............ ____ +--........ ---------i------------i---1.. ------i----------+---.. ----.. --.... ;
0.78 +............................... +-*----*-......... -.... +............ -..... _..,,... +----.. --................. --+--.......................... t.. ----------.. *-*----f.................................. +............................. +....,.. ____.............. ;
0.76 +- * -*""'"""'"'"'"'"+-**-...... -........ _.. I_................... -... --+----......................... _-+_......................... +..................... -......... f................... -.......... +............................... +............................... ;
0.72
- "*'"'*****-Plant X
"'"'''"""'Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14}
......., HCGS Cycle 14 RlA {GE14JSVEA96)
._HCGS Cycle 17 RlA (GE14}
""""%,....HCGS Cycle 20 RlA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 15 RLA{GE14/SVEA96)
......,HCGS Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
-+-HCGS Cycle 21 RLA (GNF2iGE14)
-Plant X Cycle 17 RLA{GE14)
_,.,,_HCGS Cycle 13 R!.A (GE141SVEA96)
_.,...HCGS Cycle 16 R!.A (GE14)
}HCGS Cycle 19 R!.A(GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 22 RlA (GNF2/GE14) 0.70 +-----,_
_____ --------r-------+------°-----+/-²------+-------+-----³ 0
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST}
Figure 1-4 Maximum Channel Exit Void Fraction versus Cycle Exposure 1 0 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 0.78 0.76 c
0.74 0
)
E LL 0.72
- c;
- x w
0.70 C)
E
0.68 0
u 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.60 0
"""'""""''Plant X Cycle 15 RLA (GE14)
""""'"""""'Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 14 RLA (GE14/SVEA96)
-HCGS Cycle 17 RLA(GEI4)
.,;;:;-. HCGS CL TP EQ (GNF2) 2 4
6
"""'PiantXCycle 16RLA(GE14)
"""'"'*'Plant X Cycle 19 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 15 RLA (GE141SVEA96)
-HCGS Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
-HCGSCycle21 RLA(GNF2iGE14}
PlantXCycle 17RLA(GE14)
_.,_HCGS Cycle 16 RLA(GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 22 RLA (GNF2/GE14) 14 16 18 Figure 1-5 Core Average Exit Void Fraction versus Cycle Exposure 1 1 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03 14+-------------------------*-------------------+-------------------+-----------¶--------µ------------------;!---------------------+----------------*---------'
12 6t---------------------t***-******--*****-*****----+-*-****-*****------------+---------------4-------------------+-***-----------------l--****-----***----*-****+**-**-*************************+*****--****-***--------1 4+***-********************-******t---*-***-***--*--------+-------------******------+----------------+----**--------------u---------------****-****-**i**-**----------------------+----------*-***------+-*-***----------------l 2
,.,,,,,..... plant Cycle 15 (GE14)
- """"""Plant X Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 14 RLA(GE141SVEA96)
.......,HCGS Cycle 17 RLA (GE14)
"""*'"""'"Plant X Cycle 19 RlA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 15 RLA (GE14/SVEA96)
.....,._HCGS Cycle 18 RLA (GE14)
Cycle 17 RlA (GE14)
,.-*HCGS Cycle 13 RlA (GE141SVEA96)
_...,.HCGS Cycle 16 RLA (GE14)
-HCGS Cycle 22 RLA (GIF2/GE14) 0+--
J 0
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 18 Cycle Exposure (GWd/ST)
Figure 1-6 Peak LHGR versus Cycle Exposure References 1 -1.
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, "Safety Analysis Report for Hope Creek Generating Station Thermal Power Optimization," NEDC-33871 P, Revision 0, April 201 7.
1 -2.
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, "Applicability of GE Methods to Expanded Operating Domains," NEDC-331 73P-A Revision 4, November 201 2.
1 -3.
GE Nuclear Energy, "Generic Guidelines and Evaluations for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Thermal Power Optimization," NEDC-32938P-A Revision 2, May 2003.
1 -4.
Global Nuclear Fuel, "General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,"
NEDE-2401 1 -P-A-24 and NEDE-2401 1 -P-A-24-US, March 201 7.
1 2 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 SNPB-2 LAR H17-03 GDC 1 0 requires that the reactor core be designed with appropriate margin to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits (SAFDLs) are not exceeded during any condition of normal operation, including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences. GDC 1 2 requires that the reactor core be designed to assure that power oscillations, which can result in conditions exceeding SAFDLs, are not possible or can be reliably and readily detected and suppressed. 1 0 CFR 50.36 defines limiting system safety settings (LSSS) and requires their inclusion in facility Technical Specifications. At HCNGS, the LSSS that protect the core from conditions that would challenge conformance to GDC 1 0 and 1 2 are required to be operable above a threshold value for monitoring margin to the thermal limits that assure compliance with these G DC.
The thermal limits monitoring threshold is based on ((
))
HCNGS provided an evaluation, in section 2.2 of the TSAR, demonstrating that ((
)). Then, in Section 2.4.2 of the TSAR, the license states that HCNGS will maintain its thermal limits monitoring threshold at 24 percent for operational convenience, and based on a judgment of adequacy. This is inconsistent with the basis ((
)) for the TL TR.
In light of not ((
)), provide a detailed analysis or evaluation supporting a
thermal limits monitoring threshold that exceeds the
((
)) value.
SNPB-2 RESPONSE:
NEDC-32938P-A (Reference 2-1 ) states that the thermal limits monitoring threshold ((
)). For HCGS MUR, the thermal limits monitoring threshold is increased by 1 5 MWt (0.4% thermal power, which is the difference between 24o/o CL TP and 24o/o MUR rated thermal power (RTP) relative to CL TP) in order to maintain the same percent power level ((
)). Standard Technical Specification Bases 2.1. 1. 1 a (Reference 2-2),
which is consistent with the HCGS Technical Specification Bases 2. 1. 1, describes a key component of the justification for originally establishing the thermal limits monitoring threshold at 25o/o RTP, which was likewise considered to provide a comparable margin to the other SAFDLs.
In the bases, a conservative factor of two was introduced by originally establishing the thermal limits monitoring threshold at 25o/o RTP compared to 50% RTP. From Reference 2-2:
Since the pressure drop in the bypass region is essentially all elevation head, the core pressure drop at low power and flows will always be > 4. 5 psi. Analyses (Ref. 2) show that with a bundle flow of 28 x 103 lblhr, bundle pressure drop is 1 3 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03 nearly independent of bundle power and has a value of 3. 5 psi. Thus, the bundle flow with a 4.5 psi driving head will be> 28 x 103 lblhr. Full scale ATLAS test data taken at pressures from 14. 7 psia to BOO psia indicate that the fuel assembly critical power at this flow is approximately 3. 35 MWt. With the design peaking factors, this corresponds to a THERMAL POWER > 50 % RTP. Thus, a THERMAL POWER limit of 25% RTP for reactor pressure < 785 psig is conservative.
For HCGS MUR with a thermal limits monitoring threshold at 24o/o RTP, a design peaking factor of 2. 733, which is significantly higher than expected peaking factors, would be required to use the available margin originally established in the Technical Specification Bases
[(3,902 MWt) * (24°/o RTP) I (764 fuel assemblies) * (2.733 peaking factor) = 3.35 MWt].
For GNF2 fuel, Stern test data is comparable to the ATLAS test data cited in the Technical Specification Bases. ((
))
Therefore, an increase in thermal power of 0.4o/o is deemed insignificant relative to the margin introduced in originally defining the fuel thermal monitoring threshold.
References:
2-1.
GE Nuclear Energy, "Generic Guidelines and Evaluations for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Thermal Power Optimization," NEDC-32938P-A, Revision 2, May 2003.
2-2.
NUREG-1 433, "Standard Technical Specifications General Electric BWR/4 Plants,"
Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4.0, April 201 2.
1 4 of 1 4 LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03 GEH Affidavit supporting the withholding of information in Attachment 3 from public disclosure LR-N17-0170 GE-Hitaehi Nudf'aT Energy....\\.llnericas LLC
.. 4FFID-\\ VIT I, Li11.a K. Sdliddein state as foUmvs:
LAR H17-03 (1) I am a Senior Project :Iv1:ntager, N.PP/Services Licensing, Regulato1)"... ll\\ffuirs, GE-Hitac:hi Nuclear Energy.A:mericas LLC CGEH'), and hru'e ten. <:leregated the fbuction of revie1.vmg the infonnatiou described in p::ur.agrap:b (2) wlridt is. sought to be *tvit]l.beld, and ha'ljj<e beeu authorized to apply for its witlmolding..
(2) The information sought to be witlllreld is cottfained in Attachme.nt 1 of GEH letter, DOC-0006-0106-086,.. GEH Response to NRC IPO S:NPB R...o!\\Is. :0!1 Support of tl1e Hope Creek TPO LAR,*** dated Novembe:r 17, 2017.
Tlre GEH propri.etary :U:Iiforn1.1tion in Attadu.ne:nt 1, wmdt is entitled *Response to SN1PB L.!\\Is :in Support of the Hope Creek TPO L.t\\.R,"' is identified by a dotted tutderline inside dml.lMe square brackets.. ([Til:
]q^tk-X1-;}]!f!l\\Jg.YZH In. each case. t.he super:;cl"ipt notation J} :refers to P:.urgrapb (3) of this affidavit, \\Vmch provides the basis foc the: proprietary determination..
(3) In. :making tlli.; application for witbbolding of proprietary imimnation of v,;bich it i the O\\\\'lrer or lice.nsee, GEH relies upon tlre exemption fmm. disd.ostlfe set foob. :Ut the Froodam o_fl11J"onn,tttcm Act ("'FOV\\."), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5.52(0)(4), and tbe Trade.S:lCJets Act, H! U.S. C.
Sec... 1905,.and N"RC regulations 10 CFR 9.17(a)(4), and 2.J90(a)(4) fo:r trade secrets (Exentption 4).. The uta.terial :for wlricll e!'l.!e:mptiou. from dlisdasure is h.ere sougl!rt abo q1lifies 1mder the 11:1rrower defmition. of trade secret, withi£1 *the nneanfugs assigned to those tern'L fo1f pt.t:rposes of FOLA. Exemption 4 ID,. respectively. Critical wfass Energy Projed v... Nttdear Res:nlaf.OC'if Co1m11issioo. 9'75 F.2d. 871 (D.C. Cir.. 1992), and Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA,, '704 :F..2d 1280 (D.. C. C:ir. 11983).
( 4) The it!lforu'J.atiou sought to be ii\\r:i thbeld is considered to be propriefat;{ for the reasons set forth m. pamgral:tlm (4)-a. and (4)b. Som.e exanzles. <Clf categories ofimonn.1tioo that.fit mto the definition <Ctfprop.rietary info1111a.t:iou are:
a..
Inftm.naoon lbat d&loses a process. method, or app.1ratu.. it!:tduding :SlTppGrtmg ctata and anal}ses. where prevention of its use by GEH>s competitlJH witl1out license fium GEH constitutes a co1npetitive economic a.dltalttage Oli.tff other companies;,
- b.
- fufomliation that, if tlsed by a c-oo1petitor,,.L\\o1.'dd red'uce their expenditare of resources or m1prove their competitive position in the de£:igt!l, lllt.11Uf.1Jcturre, sbip.m.e11t.,
mtalll.ation, assurance of qu.1lity, or 1kens.mg of a sil'Dibr prom:ct;
- c.
lilfOOlt::ttion tl1.1t :reveals aspects of past, present, or fL1.ture GEH customer -ftlnded dlevelopnrent plans ancl progran:lS,. re£:ultillg m pote11.tial pr.odncts to GEH d
Inftmnatioo tbat discloses 1radle secret or potmtiaUy patentable,subject JU'latter for
\\:'i.riD.dl itt may be desirable tro obbin patent proted:i<m..
(5) To address 10 CFR. 2JOO(b)(4J, the :information. soogl1t to be withlleld is being sttbu.nitted to NRC in confidence. The infun11ation is of a sort ctlstonwilly held in confidence by* GEH, LR-N17-0170 LAR H17-03 and is i:n fact so held.. TI1e infonnation soogbt to *re witlmeld lt.,;s, to the best of my J.aro*wledge a11d belief, cml.s:is.tent]:y been he]di in coofidlence by GEH., not been disclosed pnblidy, and not been nude ;;r1ililab1e m. public s;otmes.. AU dlisdosures to third parties, induding any required transinniUals to the NRC, :b.'lve 'bee.n-1tnade, or n1ust be 1nade, pursuant to regulatory pmvisioo"l: or :Pm1Jrietaary or confide.ul!ia"!ilty Rgreeme:uts tbat pro'llide :for maintaining the irt.fM.maion in ll)onfideltce. Tite :initifilll deJli1gnati.ou of trus info:rm..1tioo as.
proprietary information, and the sn:rflbseqnent ste_ps taken. to :lfR\\i'lf1lf its tut;.m.1ho.rized disdosttre,. are as set fortJh in the follo'"*"ling paragraphs (6*) and (7).
( 6) Initial approval *of pr:op.rietary ttreafilil!errtt of a danmteut is. 111ade by the 111a1ager of tlte origmatmg component, ""vbo is tl1e person nnost litely to be acqtlk1iutedl. "'ith the *value and sensitivity of the ID.foo1atio.n in :relation to iudtas*h"y 1mo7.vledge, O*f' \\'\\'1Io ii$ the person :tmost likely to be 11j*ect to the terms !!.nuller li\\bitb it \\\\"as licensed to GEH.
(7) The procedttte for approrJ'a] of e:x:tentd release o.f:!31]Cl!J a doam11em cypically requires. re\\riev,;
hy the staff manager,. project o1anag*er.,. pr.il.ldpa]. sdmtis1, or otber equivfilllent authority for technical coute.nt, coo1petiti.ve effect, aJn.dl deltenuimtio.ul! of tbe :accu:rdlcy of the proprietary d.esigrt.'ltion. Disdosures. outside GEH Me li:nnted to regrdato:ry bodies,. ctlSton'lers., and potential custou1ers, and their agents:, supphers,,. and ]icensees, and. others; 1.1.r:ith a legjtir.nate nred for tbe :infoorJatiou, ;;u"JJdl. tbe111 mdy* in a.oco1r&111.ee 't'ith.appropriate regu:btOI)"
provi"ii01.S or propridary o*r C(JIJ.mdenl!ia]ity agJ"eemal'fs..
(8:) The information..ideutified in p;n-agrapflt (1)e. alttov'e, is. classified as prOJ.."'rietary because it coiJ.ltailrJ:s detaill.ed GEH methodo*]ogy for then1t.1l pmver optmuzation. fer GEH. Boiling \\\\later Reacto.tr"S (BI1Jl:.s). De\\<elopn1e11t of the:se 1111e1hods, ted:it21li!qtues, md. iin.1thr.l1.1tion aJJd their application for the *de.sigu, :mc*difkat.ion, :.u:nd a:nalys;es. nlftoo:d.o]ogies and processes \\Vas a.chleved at fill. significant cost tJO GEH.
TI1e devektpluent of the e"'.',ilua.tioo pro;cesse:s aloug \\li.tb the.iin.terpretation and application o:f the analytical results is d.e1ni:r
... *ed fton:a the: exten:liiire experience ami infomJ;atimt data1%.tses.
that constitute a majo:r GEH fi!lsset (9') Public disdostl!e of the mftion. :smEght to tl:te '"!ll.tifllibeld is J:ilrely *to cause subs1atltial lL1rn1 to GEH."s c*run;petitive position. a11'ld for<<:lose or reduce t]le a\\ra.illab!i.lil!y of profit making oppo:trtuw.ties.. The imbm1.1tiou. is part of GEH's cmnpreballs.i,*e B\\VR safety a1!1d teclmolongy base, and its *COllliDlertial value ate1ms. berooo the orig[m] de\\i"e1opm.ent cost.
The value of tbe technology batse goe:s beyooo the arens:ii:v..-e ph)"S.ical d.1taJ.base and al:la]ytical Jnetllodlology amlld. ii:nr:]udles del<11elOJ:.t of tbe a:pertise to deten:Wne a11d apply tlre appropriate e\\'"ii!J]uatiowl process. Iu a('fdit:i.OIIl,. tb tecbl!ll01loror lttitse i11elludes. tbe value derived ftmn pro,l];dfng :.Uttdyses done 1i.llitb NRC-apprc;vro n:tetl1odls.
The research, dei.--elopn1!e3lffi', engfueermg, aa_';jjly1lica1.a111d NRC rer;ie'l.v costs cwnprise a substantial investlnent of 1lime allii IDfflooey by GEH.. The precise \\'allue of the exJ:.-edis.e to de\\ise an e\\rab.k.ttioo process; am apply the coffifct analytical metroodolog;r is difficult to quantify, but it deru-ly is sliilt6ta.1llfial GEH.'s competiitive advantage: will be 1o.st if its coo1petitors are able to use the rest.lllfs, of the GEH experimce to nmn1alize or \\reriiy theitj LR-N17-0170 f3E-Hitaehi Nuclear Energy...:\\.llnE"ricas LLC LAR H17-03 own pro*eess o:rr if they are able to daim an eqtti'1;'31ent lU1de:rstanding by dlen10$ll:ITatiug tllat they c.an arrive at the san1e or simillar conch:nsions.
TI1e.. *.. ralue of this infom7tafin to GEH \\1im1ld 'be lost if the information *1vere d.isdos.ed to the public. *!akU1g such mt'or:m;atin a*vailable to cou1petitors,..rithout th.cir ha\\<ing b..aen ret}nired to undertake a snmla:r e'Pf::[I)C1itll!re of :rresot:w:es \\\\Uuldl tu.Uairly pro\\;*ide con1peti8ars
\\Vith a \\"'lilrldfall, and depriit<e GEH offbe oppo:rrnmty to exercise its cotnpetitiit<e.actva:ntag.e to seek an adeqtate :returu on. its large m1lesm1ent m de"'.telopin,g and obttairung these vejt ri*aluable atwytkal tools.
I dedare u.n.der penalty ofperjt1rJr tl!lat the fo:regomg :is tn11e and correct
.lisa K.. Scmd1Jieiu Senioc Project :9*Ianag:er. NP'PlSenkes Lice.nswg RegulatOI)" Affam GE-II:itachi Nt1dear Energy... lU!rrica.s LLC 3901 Castle Ha*}ifle Road
\\liln'ringto(£1, NC 28401 I.isa..Scmthlem(@ge.coot