ML20247K566

Forwards Proprietary Addl Info Re Containment Response Codes for Rerate Applications for Power Rerate License Amend. GE to Util Re Suppl Info for Licensee Response to Question 13 & GE Affidavit Also Encl.Attachment 1 Withheld

ML20247K566
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	05/05/1998
From:	Hammer M NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20013J394	List: ML20247K566
References
TAC-M96238, NUDOCS 9805220140
Download: ML20247K566 (19)

Text

'

Nenhen Shese Power Company u m n nums.,o.n no m amor won n r rs unn ssee,aanneens esaansar May5,1996 US Nuclew Regulatory ComnMon Altn: Document Control Desk weeNngton DC 20sss MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket No. 50 263 Ucense No. DPR 22 Sucolomontal Information in Renard to Mont6como Power Rorste Ucense Amendment (TAC No. M96238)

Ref.1 Letter from M.F. Hammer, NSP, to NRC, ' Response to Fetruary 11,1996 Remest for

! Adetional irdormation (RAI) on Monticello Power Retsie Ucones Program (TAC No.

M96236),* March 6,1990 By letter dated March 6,1996 (Ref.1), NSP provided information on the use of containmort response codes for rarate app 5 cations. NSP is providing socii:bnal information on those codes as Aatachment 2 to this letter. This attachmerd contains information proprietary to the General l

t Electric Company (GE). OE regusets that this information be withheld from putdic disclosure.

An anidevit supporting this request is incduded wthin Adachment 2.

Pleau contact Joel Sww at (612) 2951436 if additionalinformaeon is required.

k M6chaelF. Hammer Plant Manager Monsesso Nucisar Genwsdng Plant

\ .

_ l 9805220140 980505 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P PDR Ch r bI8 b >( ( vi g\

ne i

' wh (rf l l

w- -- ---- ----- -------- - _ - -

0 a

e Regional Administrator lH. NRC NRR Prohd Manager, NRC Sr. Roaldentinspedor. NRC 8:ees ornenne oes, Ann: Mits 8=ws  ;

J. Saberg, Esq.

Anachmans Anachment 1 NSP AfRdavt Anachment 2 8 HEX 8 benchmarking Study GE Proprietary i

l l

l I

I l

t

UN:TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 54263 W Information in Regard to uorecono Poww Rorate Uoonee Amendment (TAC No. u96238)

Northem States Power Company, a Minnesota rcor%, by letter dated May 5,1996 provides supplemental information in regard to the Moniicello Nucieer Generatin0 Plant (MNGP)

Power Rorate Fig.,, Soones amendment dated December 4,1997. This letter contains no restricted or other defense information.

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY t

sy kb vwme F.Hanmer fl a u n L v .

Plant Mana0er Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Oninie5 D dayorNb.y as8 besore me a notary pubsc in and for said Comty, personssy appeared stichael F. Hammer, Plant Manager, Monticato Nuclear Generedng Plant, and belg Aret duty swom Mrcit+1 that he is authortred to execute this  ;

document on behalf of Northem States Power Company, and that to the boot of his kr ._ _.- , ,

infonnstion, and belof tw statements made in it are true.

T A ,

Samusil. Shirty ' gagyg,L gNET NotaryPdsc Minnesota sinarnous.mmessa Sherbums County urcomm es.

• 8L i

6 e

sHEX SanchmerWng Study 4BSuptemy l

l 1

I l

\

4 k

I e

l 1

I I

J j

I

GENucbar Energy

$? $ $ 0 m cnsm April 28,1998 cc: NSF GLN-98-005 J. Beres Mr. S. J. Hammer GE Northern States Power Company D. C. Pappone l Monticello Nuclear Power Generating Station DRF L12-00829 I

2807 West Highway 75 MaanWna, MN $5362-0637

Subject:

GE Response to February 1998 Request for Additional Information on Monticetto Power Rerate Program (TAC No. M%238)

Question # 13, Supplemental 1

Dear Steve:

Attached are GE's supplemental information for NSP' response to Question 13 for the subject RAI.

Attachment I provides the decay heat profdes to demonstrate that the GE-NE generic 1880 MW: decay heat used in the power rerate containment analyses bounds the MNGP-speciSc 1775 MWt decay heat prorde with a 2o adder. This attachment contains GE proprietary information which is provided under the NSP/GE NE proprietary information agreement. GE NE customarily maintains this information in confidence and withholds it kom public disclosure.

The attached af5 davit idend5es that the designated information has been handled and classi6ed as proprietary to GE-NE. Along with the affidavit this information is suitable for review by the NRC. GE-NE hereby sequests the designated information (Attachment

1) be withheld Dom public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790.

Attachment 2 provides the benchmark analyses of the SHEX 04V code to the HXSIZO3V code for use in validating the results from SHEX-04V at 1880 MWt. Benchmark analyses were performed using the May Witt and ANS 5.1 Nominal decay heat models. The resuks of the analyses demonstrate that the peak suppression pool temperature predicted with tbs SHEX 04V modd are within l'F of the peak temperature predicted with the HXSIZO3V code.

L-_ .. -

April 28,1998 GLN 96 005

)

Please call us ifyou have additional questions.

I sincerely, hlTraw P. T. Tran ,

Project Manager ,

Monticello PowerRarate Project M/C 772, Tel. No. (40s)925-3348 l

I 2

i

. l General Electric Company  !

\

t AFFIDAVIT i

i I, George B. Stramback, being duly swom, depose and state as follows:

(1) I am Project Manager, Regulatory Services, General Electric Company ("GE") 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 Attachment I to GE letter GLN-98-005, P. T. Tran to S.1. Hammer, GE Response to February 1998 Request for Additional hformation t on Monticello Power Rerate Program (TAC No.

M96238) Question # 13, Supplemental 1, dated April 28,1998. The proprietary infonnation is delineated by bars marked in the margin adjacent to the specific materialin Attachment 1.

(3) In making this application for withholding of proprietary information of which it is the owner, GE 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(aX4), 2.790(a)(4), and 2.790(d)(1) for " trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential" (Exemption 4). .The material for .which exemption from disclosure is here sought is all "confulential commercial information", and some portions also qualify under the narrower'dermition of" trade secret", within the meanings assigned to those terms for purposes of FOIA l Exemption 4 in, respectively, Critical Mass Enerny Project v. Nuclear Renulatory Commission. 975F2d871 (DC Cir.1992), and Public Citi- Health R-ch Groun l

v. FDA,704F2d1280 (DC Cir,1983).

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

l a. Information that discloses a process, method, or apparatus, including supporting data and analyses, where prevention ofits use by General Electric's competitors without license from General Electric 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, m g of a similar product; shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licens*

GBS 98 2 afmanticello_RAl_ decay _ hear _DRF. doc AfEdavit Page I

l L .

c. Information which reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of General Electric, its customers, or its suppliers;

d. Information which reveals aspects of past,$present, or future General Electric customer funded development plans and progmms, of potential commercial value to General Electric;

e. Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

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

(5) The information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in confidence.

, The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by GE, and is in fact so held. He information sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by GE, 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 l the originating component, the person most likely to be acquainted with the value

( and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge. Access to such j documents within GE is limited on a "need to know" basis.

l (7) The procedure for approval of extemal release of such a h= eat typically requires review by the staff manager, projut 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

)

l of the accuracy of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside GE are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential et>=*amers, and their agents, suppliers, j and licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then only in accordance with appropriate rey'.datory provisions or proprietary agreements.

GBS-98-2 afmanticello_RA!_ decay _ hest _DRF.&c Affidavit Page 2

1 (8)' ne information identified in paragraph (2), above, is classified as proprietary because it contains the supporting Design Record File,(DRF) detailed calculations, results and bases for conclusions on Monticello decay heat profile, his detailed level ofinformation usually resides in GENE files, only for audit by customers and the NRC. His information shows in specific detail the processes, codes and methods employed to perform the evaluations which results are in NEDC-32546P, Power Kerate Sqfety Analysis Report for Mmttcella Nuclear Generating Plant.

Revision 1. Class 111 (GE Proprietary Information), dated December 1997. This report was submitted to the NRC. Ihe development of the detail processes, codes and methods employed to perform the evaluations were developed at a significant cost to GE, on the order of a million dollars.

The development of the supporting processes, as shown in part in this DRF detailed information, was at a significant additional cost to GE.

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

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

GE's competitive advantage will be lost ifits competitors are able to use the results of the GE 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.

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

GBS-9s-2 afmonticello_RAl_ decay _ heat _DRF. doc Affidavit Page 3 l

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

) as:

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )

George B. Strambeck, being duly sworn, deposes and asys:

That he has read the fangoing amdavh and inw maners stated therein are true and conect to the best of his knowledge, informadon, erJ belief.

hem at San Jose California,this MN day of OCII- 1998.

T 2 _

'Lu(Korge 0.XKe:-!:h B.gtrembeck

~

General Electric Company BMbod and sworn before me thisN day of Md 1998.

._ ...... ....m

% :6 .

?- '

3. . . . D NYIN { NM Public, State ofCalifornia G85-98 2 aAnanticello_RAI, decay _heet_DRF. doc Amdavit Page 4

l April 28,1998 l GLN-98-005 ATTACilMENT 2 l ,

The results of SHEX-04V Benchmark Case I and Case 2 are compared to the

) results of the results ofilXSIZ03V Benchmark Case I and Case 2, respectively.

l Comparisons between SIIEX-04V and liXSIZ03V are made for the long-term response which is defined here as the time between 10 minutes (when operator action is credited including initiation of containment cooling) and the time period l past the time of the peak suppression pool temperature.

)

These comparisons demonstrate the impact on the long-term containment response of switching from IIXS1Z03V to the SIIEX-04V containment code.

It shutdd be noted that the llXSIZO31' code can only model the long-term response for only the DBA-1.OCA and only with assumptions which maximi:e drywell and suppression chamber air. space presmire. Therefore the ndichnion process is only intended to demonstrine that the SilliX-0W and HXSIZO31' cale produce similar results (suppression pad temperature and suppression chamber airspace pressure) for the DHA-1.CCA with consistent assr.nytions which maximi:e suppression char::ber airspace pressure.

The containment input parameters used in the SI{EX-04V benchmark analyses for the DBA-LOCA are the same as used for the current SIIEX-04V analysis of the DBA LOCA with a diesel generator failure and no off-site power documented in Reference 2. In fact, the results for SHEX-04V Benchmark Case 2 of this Attachment are the same as documented in Reference 2.

Decay Power Curves used for Benchmark Analyses Table i provides the core heat (Btu /sec) based on the May-Witt (Reference 3) decay heat model. The core heat includes decay heat (May-Witt), metal-water reaction energy, fission power and fuel relaxation energy. The core heat in Table 1 is normalized to the

! initial core thermal power of 102% of 1880 MWt.

2

_-_-___J_-__

l l

l April 28,1998 l GLN-98-005 ATTACllM ENT 2 Table 2 provides the core heat (Btu /sec) based on the ANS 5.1-1979 (Reference 4) decay heat model. The core heat includes decay heat (ANS 5.1-1979), metal-water reaction energy, fission power and fuel relaxation energy. The core heat in Table 2 is normalized to the initial core thermal power of 102% of 1880 MWt.

RESULTS DISCUSSION.

Tab!c 3 summarizes the results the benchmark analysis. Figure I compares the suppression pool temperature response obtained with the benchmark silex-04V calculation with the results obtained with the IIXSIZO3V benchmark calculation. Figure 2 l compares the suppression chamber airspace pressure response obtained with the benchmark SIIEX-04V calculation with the results obtained with the benchmark IIXSIZO3V calculation.

Suppression Pool 71mperature A comparison of the peak suppression pool temperatures obtained with the silex-04V code to the values obtained with the liXSlZO3V code show that there is little difTerence

(< 1 F) in the peak suppression pool temperature predicted by both codes with the use of either May Witt or ANS 5.1 decay heat. A comparison of the suppression pool temperature response curves shown in Figure 1 also shows close comparison between the SIIEX-04V and HXSIZO3V results with the use of either decay heat near the time of the peak suppression pool temperature.

]

l Suppression chamber airspace Pressure l

I A comparison of the peak long-term secondary containment pressure (near time of peak suppression pool temperature) shows close comparison (<l psi) between the results obtained whh IIXSIZO3V and silex-04V. The curves in Figure 2 also show that the pressure responses near the time of the secondary peak are similar with either containment code.

1 The large differences in the code predictions between 600 and approximately 10,000 l l

seconds is attributed to simplifying assumptions which are used in the liXSIZO3V models  !

Y These include the assumption that the vessel temperature and drywell temperature are equal and that the drywell and suppression chamber airspace pressure are equal j i

l

, 1

,ll)i!llll; jl 1!llllIti ll  !!i ;litll l1 r F8aEm3{C 1 1 2 2 5 0 5 0 5

.0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 -

F i

g 1 ^ -

u 0 r 0

0 -

I e

- 1 T _.

i m r- S e _

u

(

S _ * -

p p

-. r e e c

o  :- s s

n

• i d

s o

) . n 1 - P 0 o 0 - o l

0 0 T e

m V' p a

e r

t u

r e

C o

1 0

0 0

m p m

a r

0 i s

0 o

n S

_H X XHHH g S E E S

_ Z Z XX

! I 3M Na AM N a Sy -Sy -

5 1

W5 ti 1 W i

t t

t N N o o

,m! m n ni a a l

l 1

1)

1 . . 1ll l tlll ll llill1Il lli!1llIlll illl

~

,a2a?, 2 a;5g 1 2 3 4 5 6 0

0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 -

g

- ey F

- - 'r s,s ,

'a ,s

- i g

1 0

0 I

' JJ -

u r

e 0 - -

- - ' ~ 2 Ti - - .

s S m

e -

.' p u

( . p S -

' _ r e e c '~ s o . s n . - i d

s o _

) n _

1 -

C 0 h 0 a 0

J_ m 0 -

b g '

e r

- - P r

~

e

- s

- s u

r e

C o

1 0 '

p m _

0 0 a r

0 i 0 s o

_- =

n

=

_H H S S

_X X H H

_S S E E

_I I

_Z Z X X _

_A

_ N a Na M AM

_ Sy- Sy

_ 5 tiW5 W

. 1 1 ti t

t N N _

o o

. mi m

i

.n n

a

. al l 4 \

April 28,1998

~ ~ ~GLN:98-Do3

~

1 .

~ATTACilMENT'2 Ilowever, the most significant assumption is that the llXSIZO3V code assumes that all the vessel metal internals are submerged. Since this included vessel metal nodes which were pre.viously not submerged during the M3CPT simulation ponion . of the M3CPT/IlXS1203V (0-10 min) analysis and which are therefore at a high temperature

-(>500'F) at ten minutes, this results in a step increase in energy to the vessel at 10 minutes when the I{XSIZO3V calculation starts. This effect is magnified by the fact that at ten minutes vessel injection from the 2 LPCI pumps is terminated and only vessel injection from 1 CS pump is assumed. As a result the vessel temperature rapidly increases which produces a similar increase in drywell temperature and consequently in the containment pressure. This produces the large containment overpressure response between 600 and near 10,000 seconds with IIXSIZ.

CONCLUSIONS Based on the comparisons described above it is concluded that the long-term suppression pool temperature and suppression chamber airspace pressure response calculated with the S!!EX-04V model are consistent with the ilXSiz03V results. The comparisons also demonstrate that the more detailed S11EX-04V containment code allows a more accurate prediction of the containment pressure and temperature response for the entire event duration. The additional features in SIIEX-04V such as the modeling of vacuum breakers, i heat sinks and containment sprays allow for a better prediction capability for a variety of l events which could not be modeled with the llXSIZO3V code.

l< l 4

. . - - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . , _ - _ _ _ ._ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._..___.__._-.s_. _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _.___._

April 28,1998

. GD69F00~F ATTECllMENT 2 TABLEI CORE ilEAT (May-Witt)

Time (sec) Core Heat

• Time (sec) Core lieat' l 0. 1.002 1000. 0.0223 l 0.I 1.007 2000. 0.0184 0.2 0.9658 4000. 0.0151 0.6 0.7111 6000. 0.0135 0.8 0.6521 8000. 0.0126 1.0 0.5328 10000. 0.0120 2.0 0.4866 20000. 0.0101 4.0 0.5477 40000. 0.008125 60 0.5681 1ES 0.006245 3.0 0.5391 2E5 0.005126

10. 0.4825 3E5 0.004096

20. 0.2069 4E5 0.003596

40. 0.05693 8E5' O.003196

60. 0.044 IE6 0.002985

80. 0.0413 100. 0.03993 200. 0.03365 400. 0.02827 600. 0.02549 800. 0.02365

• Core Heat (normalized to the initial core thermal power of 1703 MWt)

= decay heat + fission power + fuel relaxation energy + metal-water reaction energy

April 28,1998

~

GLN-98-005 ATTACilMENT 2 TABLE 2 CORE IIEAT(ANS 5.1-1979)

Time (sec) Core Heat

• Time (sec) Core lleat*

O. 1.006 10000.- 0.00972 <

1. 0.5634 14400. 0.00928 j

4. 0.5319 18000. 0.00881 I

10. 0.3479 20000. 0.00859

20. 0.1092 28800. 0.00788

40. 0.0563 36000. 0.00748 l

60. 0.0405 60000, 0.00658  !

1

80. 0.0385 1ES 0.00572 120. 0.0363 4E5 0.00353 l 120." 0.0303 8E5 0.00261 200. 0.0274 1E6 0.00237  ;

400. 0.0241 2E6 0.00175 l 600, 0.0221 1000. 0.0196 1 2000. 0.0160 4000. 0.0127 6000. 0.0112 8000. 0.0103

• Core Heat (normalized to the initial core thermal power of 1880 MWt)

= decay heat + fission power + fuel relaxation energy + metal-water reaction energy

" Metal-water reaction heat is assumed to end at 120 seconds.

6 e_______.__. - . _ . _ _

April 28,1998 GLN 98-005 ATTACIIMENT 2 TABLE 3 -

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS RESULTS ICASE 1 2 1 2

• j SHEX SiiEX M3CPT/ M3CPT/

llXSIZ HXSIZ Rated Power * (MW ) 1880 1880 1880 1880 Decay licat May Witt ANS 5.1 May Witt ANS 5.1 K (BTU /see *F) total 143.1 143.1 143.1 143.1 Initial Dr)wc!! & Supp. 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 Chamb. Altspace Pressure (psia)

Pool Temp at 6005 ('F) 146.9 I44.8 155.3 154.1 j Peak Suppression Pool  ;

Temperature ('F) 207.2 193.6 207.6 194.0 I Secondary Suppression Chamber Altspace 44.25 36.49 44.47 37.23 Pressure Peak (psia) ,

l l !

l l

• Analyscs performed at 102% ofinitial core thermal power.

j I

l 7

April 28,1998

. GLN-98-005 ArrACIIMENT 2 REFERENCES 1 NEDO-32418, "Montice!!o Design Basis Accident Containment Pressure and Temperature Response for USAR Update," December 1994.

2. GE-NE-T2300731-1 (Draft), " Containment Response Evaluation Task 6.0,"

August 1997.

3 NEDO-10625, " Power Generation in a BWR Following Noanal Shutdown or Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Conditions," March 1973.

4 " Decay Heat Power in Light Water Reactors," ANSI /ANS-5.1 - 1979, Approved by American National Standards Institute, August 29,1979.

M

. .. __ .