ML102660406

NEDO-33601, Revison 0, Engineering Report Grand Gulf Replacement Steam Dryer Fatigue Stress Analysis Using Pble Methodology. Appendix B Through Appendix D

ML102660406
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	09/30/2010
From:	GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
DRF 0000-0075-7016, GNRO-2010/00056 NEDO-33408, Rev 1, NEDO-33601, Rev 0
Download: ML102660406 (126)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix B

Appendix B

ESBWR Steam Dryer - Plant Base d Load Evaluation Methodology (NED-33408) This appendix contains Revision 1 of NEDO-33408, which was submitted to the NRC by GEH in MFN Letter 09-515, dated August 3, 2009.

NEDO-33408 Revision 1 Class I DRF 0000-0075-7016 July 2009

Licensing Topical Report

ESBWR STEAM DRYER - PLANT BASED LOAD EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Copyright 2008, 2009 GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC All Rights Reserved NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 ii NON-PROPRIETARY IN FORMATION NOTICE This is a non-proprietary version of NEDC-33408P which has the proprietary information removed. Portions of the document that have been removed are indica ted by open and closed double square bracket as shown here [[ ]]. IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT The information contained in this document is furnished as reference to the NRC Staff for the purpose of obtaining NRC approval of the ESBWR Certification and implementation. The only undertakings of GE Hitachi Nucl ear Energy (GEH) with respect to information in this document are contained in contracts between GEH and participating utilities, and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing those contracts. The use of this information by anyone other that for which it is inte nded is not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, GEH makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document. NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 iii Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Model Description.....................................................................................................................2 2.1 Overview....................................................................................................................................2 2.2 Dome Acoustic Model...............................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Sysnoise Modeling Principles.......................................................................................................3

2.2.2 Geometry

Modeling......................................................................................................................3

2.2.3 Finite

Element Model....................................................................................................................9

2.2.4 Fluid

Properties and Boundary Conditions................................................................................. 11 2.3 PBLE from [[

]].....................................................................................12 2.3.1 Solution Formulation...................................................................................................................12

2.3.2 Singularity

Factor........................................................................................................................14

2.4 Steam

and Water Acoustic Properties.....................................................................................16 2.4.1 [[ ]]........................................................................................16 2.4.2 Steam-water interface..................................................................................................................20

3.0 Model

Qualification: BWR plant validation............................................................................23 3.1.1 Procedure for QC2 benchmarks..................................................................................................23 3.2 QC2 Benchmark at OLTP.......................................................................................................26 3.2.1 From [[ ]]....................................................................26 3.2.2 From [[ ]]..........................................27 3.3 QC2 Benchmark at EPU..........................................................................................................28 3.3.1 From [[ ]]..................................................................28 3.3.2 From [[ ]].......................................29 3.4 QC2 Benchmark Conclusions..................................................................................................30

4.0 Application

Methodology........................................................................................................31

4.1 Scope

of Application and Licensing Requirements.................................................................31

4.1.1 Scope

of Application...................................................................................................................31

4.1.2 Specific

Licensing Requirements................................................................................................31 4.2 Proposed Application Methodology........................................................................................31 4.2.1 Conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.20 Rev 3.......................................................................32

4.3 Range

of Application...............................................................................................................36 4.4 Plant-Specific Application Methodology................................................................................36 4.4.1 [[]] Model Inputs...........................................................................................................36

4.4.2 Plant

Input Measurements...........................................................................................................38 4.4.3 Plant-Specific Load Definition....................................................................................................39

4.4.4 Application

Un certainties and Biases..........................................................................................39 4.4.4.1 Method Presentation..........................................................................................................39 4.4.4.2 Step 1 - Sensitivity of [[]].....................................................................................42 4.4.4.3 Step 2 - Uncertainty in [[

]].........................................................................44 4.4.4.4 Combination of Uncertainties and Biases..........................................................................45

4.5 Demonstration

Analysis...........................................................................................................46 5.0 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................49 6.0 References................................................................................................................................50 Appendix A QC2 OLTP BENCHMARKS PSDS...............................................................51 Appendix B QC2 EPU Benchmark PSDs............................................................................60 Appendix C QC2 EPU Uncertainty Assessment.................................................................69

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 iv List of Tables Table 1 First Ten RPV modes........................................................................................................8 Table 2 [[ ]]................................................................17 Table 3 Impedances in a Typical BWR RPV Environment........................................................21 Table 4 QC2 Frequency Bands for Main Acoustic Peaks...........................................................24 Table 5 Parameters in the [[ ]]................................................................40 Table 6 Total Bias and Uncertainty for PBLE from [[ ]] for QC2 at EPU....................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 7 Nominal, Upper and Lower Bound Parameter Values for QC2.....................................69

Table 8 Changes in [[ ]]......................................................74 Table 9 Acoustic Modes (Hz) of the Nominal and Modified Meshes.........................................74 Table 10 [[ ]]...........................................76 Table 11 [[ ]].....................................................................................................................80 Table 12 [[ ]].....................................................................................................................81 Table 13 PBLE predictions - Measurement Loop Deviations from Nominal at Low Frequencies ...............................................................................................................................................81 Table 14 PBLE predictions - Measurement Loop Deviations from Nominal at High Frequencies ...............................................................................................................................................82 Table 15 [[ ]]...............................................................................................................................................83 Table 16 [[

          ]].....................................................................................................................83 Table 17  Consolidated Uncertainty - [[      ]]......84 Table 18  Consolidated Uncertainty - [[      ]].....84 

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 v List of Figures Figure 1. PBLE Process Flow................................................................................................... ......2 Figure 2. Modeled steam region (left) and details of typical vessel meshes (right)......................5 Figure 3. Vessel response (left) [[ ]]6 Figure 4. First typical [[ ]]........................................................................................................................7 Figure 5. [[

]]....................................................................................................9 Figure 6.  [[
]]....................................................................................................10 Figure 7. Pressure amplitudes on dryer at 15 Hz (Forced Response) View of CD side...............11 Figure 8. Vessel passive boundary conditions

..............................................................................12 Figure 9. [[ ]].................................15 Figure 10. [[ ]].........................................................19 Figure 11. Steam-Water Interfaces............................................................................................. ..20 Figure 12. Speed of sound in [[

]] (Fig. 5 in Karplus [8]).....................................21 Figure 13. Sensor Positions for Dryer Data Benchmark...............................................................23 Figure 14.  [[       ]]..........................................26 Figure 15.  [[       ]]..........................................27 Figure 16. QC2 EPU Benchmark from
[[   ]]............................................28 Figure 17. QC2 EPU Benchmark from
[[   ]]............................................29 Figure 18.  [[       ]].................................................37 Figure 19.  [[        ]]......................................43 Figure 20. PBLE [[  ]] - Range of Predictions Versus Measurements.......47 Figure 21. DOE on [[        ]]............71 Figure 22. DOE on [[    ]]  Black Thick Line is the Nominal Experiment.............................................................................................................................72 Figure 23. FEM Mesh Upstream the Dryer Showing the Regions With [[  ]]..........................................................................................................................73 Figure 24. FRFs for Different FE Meshes With [[
 ]]............................75 Figure 25. FRFs With Finer FE Mesh..........................................................................................77 Figure 26.  [[
   ]].......................................................................78 Figure 27.  [[          ]]...........80 Figure 28. PBLE Predictions - Uncertainty Due to the Measurement Loop................................82 Figure 29. PBLE from
[[       ]].......85 

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 vi Acronyms and Abbreviations BWR Boiling Water Reactor CAD Computer-Aided Design CLTP Current Licensed Thermal Power CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOE Design Of Experiments EPU Extended Power Uprate ESBWR Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor FE / FEM Finite Elements / Finite Element Method / Finite Element Model FRF Frequency Response Function GDC General Design Criteria GEH GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Hz Hertz LTR Licensing Topical Report MSL Main Steam Line OLTP Original Licensed Thermal Power NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission PBLE Plant Based Load Evaluation PSD Power Spectral Density PT Pressure Transducer PWR Pressurized Water Reactor QC2 Quad Cities 2 RG Regulatory Guide RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel SF Singularity Factor SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 vii SRV Safety / Relief Valve 3D Three Dimensional

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 viii Abstract A methodology, termed Plant Based Load Evaluation (PBLE), is presented for defining the fluctuating loads that are imposed upon the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) reactor steam dryer. The PBLE load definition can be applied to a structural finite element model of the steam dryer in order to determine the steam dryer alternating stresses.

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 1 of 85

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As a result of steam dryer issues at operating Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N RC) has issued revised guidance concerning the evaluation of steam dryers [1]. Analysis must show that the dryer will maintain its structural integrity during plant operation due to acoustic and hydrodynamic fluctuati ng pressure loads. This demonstration of steam dryer structural integrity comes in three steps: (1) Predict the fluctuating pressure loads on the dryer, (2) Use these fluctuating pressure load in a structural analysis to qualify the steam dryer design (3) Implement a startup test program for confirming the steam dryer design analysis results as the plant performs power ascension. The PBLE (Plant Based Load Evaluation) is an analytical tool developed by GEH to perform the prediction of fluctuating pressure loads on the steam dryer. This report provides the theoretical basis of the PBLE method that will be applied for determining the fluctuating loads on the ESBWR steam dryer, describes the PBLE analytical model, determines the biases and uncertainties of the PBLE formulation and desc ribes the application of the PBLE method to the evaluation of the ESBWR steam dryer. NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 2 of 85 2.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION 2.1 Overview [[]] Figure 1. PBLE Process Flow The PBLE can be [[ ]] This is the methodology to be used in the ESBWR evaluation and is described in this report. [[ ]] The PBLE is built on the commercial software packages Matlab [2] and Sysnoise[3]. Matlab is a software package designed for engineering computations. The general architecture of the PBLE scripts makes use of the Matlab programming language and graphical interface. The vessel acoustic response is calculated with Sysnoise. Sysnoise is a program for modeling acoustic wave behavior in fluids, using implementations of the finite element and boundary NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 3 of 85 element methods. In the PBLE context, Sysnoi se calculates how sound waves propagate through a FEM model of the RPV dome steam volumes. This 3D acoustic model is described in detail in Section 2.2 below. 2.2 Dome Acoustic Model

2.2.1 Sysnoise

Modeling Principles Sysnoise [3] models acoustics as a wave-phenomenon. The modeling is carried out in the frequency domain, thus using th e so-called Helmholtz form of the wave equation (see e.g. [5] and [10]). [[ ]] The following system of equations is solved: (1) []{}{}AFpMCiK=+2 Where F A is the vector of nodal acoustic forces, proportional to the normal velocity boundary conditions imposed on the faces of the mesh. The stiffness [K], damping [C] and mass [M] matrices are computed at each frequency. The system of equations is thus set up and solved to obtain the pressure distribution {p}. The velocity field is obtai ned by differentiation of the pressure field at the Gauss points of the elements and then extrapolation and averaging at the nodes. 2.2.2 Geometry Modeling The dome FE mesh (Figure 2) comprises all RPV steam volumes [[ ]] In all GEH BWRs, there are two steam zones with different steam qualities, upstream and downstream of the dryer. [[ NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 4 of 85 ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 5 of 85

 [[ ]] Figure 2. Modeled steam region (left)  and details of typical vessel meshe s (right) 

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 6 of 85 [[ ]] Figure 3. Vessel response (left) [[ ]] [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 7 of 85 [[ ]] Figure 4. First typical [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 8 of 85 Table 1 First Ten RPV modes Mode No. Modal Frequency (Hz) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 9 of 85

2.2.3 Finite

Element Model [[ ]] [[]] Figure 5. [[ ]] [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 10 of 85 [[]] Figure 6. [[ ]] [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 11 of 85 Figure 7. Pressure amplitudes on dryer at 15 Hz (Forced Response) View of CD side 2.2.4 Fluid Properties and Boundary Conditions [[ ]] Steam and water properties including impedance boundary conditions are de scribed in detail in Section 2.4. NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 12 of 85 [[]] Figure 8. Vessel passive boundary conditions 2.3 PBLE from [[ ]] 2.3.1 Solution Formulation The pressure at any dryer point P [[ NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 13 of 85 ]] as shown in the benchmark assessments in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this report. [[ NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 14 of 85 ]] These considerations make the PBLE from in-vessel pressures a quite powerful tool.

2.3.2 Singularity

Factor The Singularity Factor (SF) is a tool to understand the mathematical limitations in PBLE. It is calculated as: [[

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ]]

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 15 of 85 [[]] Figure 9. [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 16 of 85

2.4 Steam

and Water Acoustic Properties This section describes all steam and water characteristic properties used in PBLE models: [[

       ]] Dry steam properties, including speed of sound and density, are readily known from standard steam tables published by the International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam 

[6]. Petr [7] developed the [[ ]] by Karplus [8]. 2.4.1 [[ ]] The following summary follows the description given in [7], Section 2. The variable nomenclature for this section is in Table 2. [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 17 of 85 Table 2 [[ ]] [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 18 of 85 [[

                                                                                       ]]

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 19 of 85 [[]] Figure 10. [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 20 of 85 2.4.2 Steam-water interface [[ ]] [[]] Figure 11. Steam-Water Interfaces NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 21 of 85 Table 3 Impedances in a Typical BWR RPV Environment [[ ]] Figure 12. Speed of sound in [[ ]] (Fig. 5 in Karplus [8]) The solution that was adopted for the PBLE is to model [[ NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 22 of 85 ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 23 of 85

3.0 MODEL

QUALIFICATION: BWR PLANT VALIDATION The Quad Cities Unit 2 (QC2) replacement steam dryer, installed in 2005, was the first GEH BWR unit instrumented with a significant number of on-dryer pressure sensors. This section presents the steam dryer fluctuating load definitions obtained with the PBLE at QC2 for two power levels, one at the QC2 Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) level and at Extended Power Uprate (EPU) conditions.

3.1.1 Procedure

for QC2 benchmarks The QC2 dryer instrumentation comprised 27 PT se nsors, labeled P:1 through P:27 [9]. Pressure sensor P:26, which was installed on the stream dryer temporary instrumentation mast, is not considered in this benchmark since the main inte rest is in pressure on the dryer surface. [[ ]] [[ ]] Figure 13. Sensor Positions for Dryer Data Benchmark [[ NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 24 of 85 ]] Table 4 QC2 Frequency Bands for Main Acoustic Peaks OLTP EPU Begin Frequency (Hz) End Frequency (Hz) Begin Frequency (Hz) End Frequency (Hz) 8 10 8 10 13 16 13 16 22 26 22 26 29 31 28 34 32 35 38 46 44 48 48 58 61 69 132 145 130 136 146 153 137 142 154 158 147 149 159 168 150 153 146 158 154 158 150 158

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 25 of 85 [[ ]] The last segment PSDs at all sensors locations are plotted in Appendix A and Appendix B. NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 26 of 85 3.2 QC2 Benchmark at OLTP 3.2.1 From [[ ]] [[ ]] Figure 14. [[ ]] (Numbers in parenthesis refer to the equation numbers) NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 27 of 85 3.2.2 From [[ ]] [[ ]] Figure 15. [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 28 of 85 3.3 QC2 Benchmark at EPU 3.3.1 From [[ ]] [[ ]] Figure 16. QC2 EPU Benchmark from [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 29 of 85 3.3.2 From [[ ]] [[ ]] Figure 17. QC2 EPU Benchmark from [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 30 of 85 3.4 QC2 Benchmark Conclusions The PBLE predictions using [[ ]] are highly accurate: the low frequency content below [[ ]] These good results validate the main assumption that [[ ]] to reproduce measured dryer pressures, including at low frequencies. Using [[ ]] is on the conservative side. [[ ]] This demonstrates the [[ ]]. The main limitations in these dryer data benchmark lie within the FE model. [[ ]] at both power levels. The modeling of the region inside the dryer is also challenged; [[ ]] are generally less accurate. Overall the PBLE from [[

]] emerges as a viable tool for developing dryer load definitions. The frequency content and the spatial distribution are well matched, the amplitude predictions are genera lly conservative and pressures aw ay from the MSL nozzles are consistent with plant test data from other dryers.

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 31 of 85

4.0 APPLICATION

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Scope

of Application and Licensing Requirements

4.1.1 Scope

of Application The scope of the application for the Plant Base d Load Evaluation Licensing Topical Report is to provide a methodology for determining the fluctu ating pressure loads that the ESBWR steam dryer will experience during normal operation. This fluctuating load definition can then be applied to a finite element model of the ESBWR steam dryer in order to determine the structural qualification of the dryer.

4.1.2 Specific

Licensing Requirements Plant components, such as the steam dryer in a BWR nuclear power plant, perform no safety function but must retain their structural integrity to avoid the generation of loose parts that might adversely impact the capability of other plant equipment to perform their safety function. Potential adverse flow effects must be evaluated for the steam dryer to meet the requirements of GDC 1 and 4 in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50. Standard Review Plan [12], Section 3 requires that the dynamic responses of structural components with the reactor vessel caused by steady-state and operational flow transient conditions should be analyzed fo r prototype (first of a design) reactors. The analytical assessment of the vibration behavior of the steam dryer includes the de finition of the input-forcing function including bias errors and uncertainty. References [12] and [13] contain specific acceptance criteria related to formulating forcing functions for vibration prediction. Reference 1 provides guidance on acceptable methods for formulating the forcing functions for vibration prediction.

4.2 Proposed

Application Methodology The PBLE method for formulating the forcing function for vibration prediction for the ESBWR steam dryer is in conformance with the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.20 Revision 3. NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 32 of 85 4.2.1 Conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.20 Rev 3 The following table provides the conformance of the PBLE to the requirements contained in Section 2.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.20 Revision 3 [1]. RG 1.20 Section Criteria PBLE Conformance 2.1.(1)(a) Determine the pressure fluctuations and vibration in the applicable plant systems under flow conditions up to and including the full operating power level. Such pressure fluctuations and vibration can result from hydrodynamic effects and acoustic resonances under the plant system fluid flow conditions. Acceptable -The PBLE method is applicable up to the full power level of the plant. Since the PBLE approach in this LTR uses [[ ]], all pressure fluctuation, either hydrody namic or acoustic are captured. 2.1.(1)(b) Justify the method for determining pressure fluctuations, vibration, and resultant cyclic stress in plant systems. Based on past experience, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses might not provide sufficient quantitative information regarding high-frequency pressure loading without supplemental analyses. Scale testing can be applied for the high-frequency acoustic pressure loading and for verifying the pressure loading results from CFD analyses and the supplemental analyses, where the bias error and random uncertainties are properly addressed. The justification of the PBLE method is acceptable based on the benchmarking shown in Section 4.5 of this report. Stress analysis is not applicable to the scope of this LTR. CFD modeling is not applicable to the PBLE 2.1.(1)(c) Address significant acoustic resonances that have the potential to damage plant piping and components including steam dryers, and perform modifications to reduce those acoustic resonances, as necessary, based on the analysis. Acceptable - the PBLE is capable of determining acoustic resonances that may be detrimental to the steam dryer. Modifications for reducing acoustic resonances is beyond the scope of this LTR 2.1.(1) Scale Model Testing Not applicable - Scale model Testing is not used in the PBLE for determination of the steam dryer loads 2.1.(1) Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) modeling Not applicable - CFD modeling is not used in the PBLE for determination of the steam dryer loads NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 33 of 85 RG 1.20 Section Criteria PBLE Conformance 2.1.(2) Describe the structural and hydraulic system natural frequencies and associated mode shapes that may be excited during steady-state and anticipated transient operation, for reactor internals that, based on past experience, are not adversely affected by the flow-excited acoustic resonances and flow-induced vibrations. Additional analyses should be performed on those systems and components, such as steam dryers and main steam system components in BWRs and steam generator internals in PWRs, that may potentially be adversely affected by the flow-excited acoustic resonances and flow-induced vibrations. These additional analyses are summarized below. Acceptable - The PBLE is capable of determining the acoustic mode shapes within the reactor steam dome. It will simulate the acoustic response of the steam dome from the significant excitation sources. 2.1.(2) Determine the damping of the excited mode shapes, and the frequency response functions (FRFs, i.e., vibration induced by unit loads or pressures, and stresses induced by unit loads or pressures), including all bias errors and uncertainties. Acceptable - FRF are determined by the PBLE. Bias errors and uncertainties have been addressed. 2.1.(3) Describe the estimated random and deterministic forcing functions, including any very-low-frequency components, for steady-state and anticipated transient operation for reactor internals that, based on past experience, are not adversely affected by the flow-excited acoustic resonances and flow-induced vibrations. Additional analyses should be performed on those systems and components, such as steam dryers and main steam system components in BWRs and steam generator internals in PWRs, that may potentially be adversely affected by the flow-excited acoustic resonances and flow-induced vibrations. These additional analyses are summarized below. Acceptable - the PBLE is capable of determining the forcing functions in the frequency range important to BWR dryers. 2.1.(3) Evaluate any forcing functions that may be amplified by lock-in with an acoustic and/or structural resonance (sometimes called self-excitation mechanisms). A lock-in of a forcing function with a resonance strengthens the resonance amplitude. The resulting amplitudes of the forcing function and resonance response can therefore be significantly higher than the amplitudes associated with non-lock-in conditions. Lock in assessment is not required for PBLE loads [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 34 of 85 RG 1.20 Section Criteria PBLE Conformance 2.1.(3) The applicant/licensee should determine the design load definition for all reactor internals, including the steam dryer in BWRs up to the full licensed power level, and should validate the method used to determine the load definitions based on scale model or plant data. BWR applicants should include instrumentation on the steam dryer to measure pressure loading, strain, and acceleration to confirm the scale model testing and analysis results. BWR licensees should obtain plant data at current licensed power conditions for use in confirming the results of the scale model testing and analysis for the steam dryer load definition prior to submitting a power uprate request. Acceptable - The PBLE uses in plant data for the determination of the steam dryer load definition. 2.1.(3) In recent BWR EPU requests, some licensees have employed a model to compute fluctuating pressures within the RPV and on BWR steam dryers that are inferred from measurements of fluctuating pressures within the MSLs connected to the RPV. Applicants should clearly define all uncertainties and bias errors associated with the MSL pressure measurements and modeling parameters. The bases for the uncertainties and bias errors, such as any experimental evaluation of modeling software, should be clearly presented. There are many approaches for measuring MSL pressures and computing fluctuating pressures within the RPV and the MSLs. Although some approaches reduce bias and uncertainty, they still have a finite bias and uncertainty, which should be reported. Based on historical experience, the following guidance is offered regarding approaches that minimize uncertainty and bias error: Acceptable - the PBLE methodology in this report uses [[ ]] for determ in ation of the load definition. The PBLE methodology in this report demonstrates the methodology to determine bias errors and uncertainties associated with the PBLE methodology [[

   ]]. 2.1.(3)(a) At least two measurement locations should be employed on each MSL in a BWR. However, using three measurement locations on each MSL improves input data to the model, particularly if the locations are spaced logarithmically. This will reduce the uncertainty in describing the waves coming out of and going into the RPV. Regardless of whether two or three measurement locations are used, no acoustic sources should exist between any of the measurement locations, unless justified.

Not applicable - the PBLE methodology in this report [[

   ]].

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 35 of 85 RG 1.20 Section Criteria PBLE Conformance 2.1.(3)(b) Strain gages (at least four gages, circumferentially spaced and oriented) may be used to relate the hoop strain in the MSL to the internal pressure. Strain gages should be calibrated according to the MSL dimensions (diameter, thickness, and static pressure). Alternatively, pressure measurements made with transducers flush-mounted against the MSL internal surface may be used. The effects of flow turbulence on any direct pressure measurements should be accounted for in a bias error and uncertainty estimate. Not applicable - the PBLE uses

[[ ]] The effects of fl ow turbul ence on the pressure measurement is included in the PBLE uncertainty assessment. 2.1.(3)(c) The speed of sound used in any acoustic models should not be changed from plant to plant, but rather should be a function of temperature and steam quality. Acceptable - the speed of sound in the PBLE is a function of the steam fluid conditions within the RPV. 2.1.(3)(d) Reflection coefficients at any boundary between steam and water should be based on rigorous modeling or direct measurement. The uncertainty of the reflection coefficients should be clearly defined. Note that simply assuming 100-percent reflection coefficient is not necessarily conservative. Acceptable - the co nditions of the steam water interface and the associated uncertainty is developed for the PBLE method. 2.1.(3)(e) Any sound attenuation coefficients should be a function of steam quality (variable between the steam dryer and reactor dome), rather than constant throughout a steam volume (such as the volume within the RPV). Acceptable - the PBLE formulation uses the steam quality in the reactor steam dome and dryer for the sound attenuation coefficients. 2.1.(3)(f) Once validated, the same speed of sound, attenuation

coefficient, and reflection coefficient should be used in other plants. However, different flow conditions (temperature, pressure, quality factor) may dictate adjustments of these parameters. Acceptable - the speed of sound is based on the thermodynamic properties of steam in the RPV Other Model Benchmarking PBLE is benchmarked against previously instrumented dryer data Other Determination of Biases and Uncertainty Biases and Uncertainty have been calculated Note that other sections of Reference 1 refer to structural analysis of the steam dryer or preoperational/startup testing that is outside of the scope of this Licensing Topical Report.

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 36 of 85

4.3 Range

of Application The PBLE method described in this report is capable of determining the vibratory forcing function for the entire operating range of the ESBWR steam dryer. 4.4 Plant-Specific Application Methodology 4.4.1 [[]] Model Inputs The vessel [[

                ]] Acoustic Finite Element Model Mesh A FE model of the [[

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 37 of 85 ]] [[]] Figure 18. [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 38 of 85 [[ ]] 4.4.2 Plant Input Measurements Sensor Type and Location For the PBLE [[ ]] Error in Measured Dryer Pressures This error, [[ NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 39 of 85 ]] 4.4.3 Plant-Specific Load Definition The following steps are involved in the calcula tion of dryer loads with the PBLE: [[

                                                                                                                                              ]] 4.4.4  Application Uncertainties and Biases This section describes the processes for how to calculate the PBLE uncertainties for a plant-specific application. The methodology presented here provides an uncer tainty due to errors in the PBLE inputs: 

[[ ]] 4.4.4.1 Method Presentation This section describes constituting elements of the uncertainty analysis: the varying input parameters, the statistical methods in use, the nomina l case and how deviations from the nominal case are calculated. NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 40 of 85 Parameters in the Uncertainty Analysis The code parameters and variables that have an influence in the load definition are listed in Table 5. All influence [[ ]] Table 5 Parameters in the [[ ]] Phenomena Parameter [[ ]] Analysis Techniques The techniques used in the evaluation of the uncertainty are briefly introduced in the following paragraphs. Design of Experiments A Design of Experiment (DOE) is a structured, organized method for determining the relationship between parameters affecting a pro cess and the output of that process. Forced changes are made methodically to the input parameters as directed by mathematically systematic tables and the impact on the results is assessed. It is suitable for the present study since it allows maximizing information with a limited number of well-chosen parameter variations. The effect of input variables can be judged when acting alone, or in combination with others. For each input parameter, a number of possible values are defined, representing the known variation range for each variable. [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 41 of 85 Monte Carlo Analysis The Monte Carlo method is a way to statistically evaluate a system using random samples. The larger the number of random samples is, the more accurate the results. From the mathematical point of view it consists of choosing a large number of parameter values at random from within a variation interval. It is useful to assess uncertainty when the ranges of the input parameters can not be given in a deterministic way (upper and lower bounds), but their probability density functions are known. Deviations from Nominal Case The nominal case corresponds to the PBLE results with all parameters at their best known values. These results are obtained by followi ng the guidelines outlined in Section 4.4. [[

                                                      ]]

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 42 of 85 4.4.4.2 Step 1 - Sensitivity of [[]] Aside from parameters related to numerical accuracy, a range of values is known for each parameter in Table 5. [[

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 43 of 85 ]] Based on the results of these DOEs, [[ ]] [[]] Figure 19. [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 44 of 85 Numerical Accuracy The uncertainty due to [[ ]] 4.4.4.3 Step 2 - Uncertainty in [[ ]] Once [[ ]] that take into account the influence of the sensitive parameters in Table 5 have been pre-computed, the overall uncertainty in the PBLE loads can be evaluated. [[ NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 45 of 85 ]] 4.4.4.4 Combination of Uncertainties and Biases Individual uncertainties (due to different parameters or groups of parameters) are combined into a single one by taking the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS): (22) =2 iuU where: U = Total uncertainty u i = Individual uncertainties If the parameters or groups of parameters are not independent from each other, the combined uncertainty is conservative. A benchmark against measured dryer pressures w ould produce a bias and an uncertainty in each frequency band. Then the total bias of the PBLE loads is the benchmark bias and the total uncertainty is a SRSS in which the benchmark uncertainty is a term of the sum.

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 46 of 85

4.5 Demonstration

Analysis This section details how uncertainties are combined in the example of Section 3.3.2: QC2 at EPU condition, [[ ]] The QC2 at OLTP had a different set of acoustic frequencies and benchmark result s, but the bias and uncertainties would be calculated and assessed in the same manner. The deviation from measured data (bias and uncertainty) is covered in the benchmark section (Section 3.3.2). The bias [Equation (17)] indicates any [[ ]] For QC2 at EPU, the biases and uncertainties from the comparison between nominal projections and measured pressures are in Figure 17. The uncertainties due to the model parameters is calculated in detail in Appendix C. For the PBLE from in-vessel pressures, the contributors are: [[

                                            ]] The consolidated results are show n in Table 6 and Figure 20. In Fi gure 20 the predicted summed PSDs are also corrected with the biases from the benchmark against test data. 

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 47 of 85

[[ ]] Figure 20. PBLE 

[[ ]] - Range of Predictions Versus Measurements

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 48 of 85 Table 6 Total Bias and Uncertainty for PBLE from [[ ]] for QC2 at EPU Frequency Band (Hz) 8 -10 13 - 16 22 - 28 28 - 34 38 - 46 48 - 58 132 - 145

146 - 153

154 - 158

159 - 168 146 - 158 BIAS (%) [[ ]] -8.36 -6.43 8.49 6.28 5.47 -12.04 -14.20 20.99 -4.70 -4.70 9.60 UNCERTAINTY (%)

           8.74 4.79 2.98 2.06 1.44 2.67 2.89 0.76 0.97 3.00 1.08 0.86 0.82 0.95 0.66 0.76 6.07 3.85 10.64 2.18 4.62 6.30 2.89 3.57 3.99 3.83 3.11 2.96 3.07 4.03 3.69 2.69 3.87 0.38 0.49 0.36 0.24 0.62 0.66 2.69 2.46 1.31 1.88 1.99  0.91 1.12 1.24 0.95 0.64 0.76 3.08 4.63 1.56 3.41 3.40 Total uncertainty (SRSS) 9.30 6.15 5.23 4.51 3.62 7.33 7.02 12.55 4.84 7.26 8.45 NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 49 of 85 

5.0 CONCLUSION

S The Plant Based Load Evaluation methodology [[

 ]] is available to predict dryer pressure loads and their associated uncertainty. A built-in [[                         ]] The PBLE technique is validated by the Quad Cities 2 application case. From comparison between measurements and projections, the PB LE predicts good frequency content and spatial distribution. The SRV valve resonances are well captured. The PBLE predictions are highly accurate: the low frequency content below [[                          ]]  These good results validate the main assumption that [[
   ]] to reproduce measured dryer pressures, including low frequencies. The PBLE addresses a wide range of load cases:

• MSL valve resonance (SRV/branch line) or broadband excitations (venturi)
• Sources in the vicinity of nozzles
• Hydrodynamic loading (pseudo-pressures) The effects from the last tw o types of sources can be advantageously modeled by [[

      ]]; for this reason the PBLE from [[
]] is adequate to predict fluctua ting dryer loads at any BWR plant. 

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 50 of 85

6.0 REFERENCES

 [1] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulator Guide 1.20 Revision 3, March 2007, "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing." [2] MATLAB , Copyright 1984-2008, The MathWorks, Inc. [3] Sysnoise Revision 5.6, LMS Internationa l, Users Manual Revision 1.0, March 2003. [4] S.H. Jang and J.G. Ih, On the multiple microphone method for measuring in-duct acoustic properties in the presence of mean flow, J. Acous. Soc. Am., Vol. 103, No. 3, March 1998. [5] P.M. Morse and K.U. Ingard, Theoretical Acoustics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968, p.519. [6] W. Wagner et al., The IAPWS Industrial Formulation 1997 for the Thermodynamic Properties of Water and Steam, ASME J. E ng. Gas Turbines and Power, 122, 150-182 (2000) [7] V. Petr, Wave propagation in wet steam , Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs Vol 218 Part C 2004, p 871-882. [8] H. B. Karplus, Propagation of pressure waves in a mixture of water and steam , Armour Research Foundation of Illinois Institute of Technology, United States Atomic Energy Commission contract No. AT (11-1) 528, ARF No. D132A13, 1961  [9] GE-NE-0000-0044-2240-01, "Quad Cities Unit 2 Replacement Steam Dryer, Vibration Instrumentation Program, Plant Startup Test Report"  [10] L.E. Kinsler, A.R. Frey, A.B. Coppens, J.V. Sanders, Fundamentals of Acoustics , Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 2000. [11] GE report number GE-NE-0000-0037-1951-01, Y. Dayal, Quad Cities Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant, Dryer Vibration Instrumentation Uncertainty, Revision 0,  April 2005 [12] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0800, Revision 3, March 2007, Section 3.9.2, "Dynamic Testing and Analysis of Systems, Structures and Components." [13] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0800, Revision 3, March 2007, Section 3.9.5, "Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals." 

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 51 of 85 APPENDIX A QC2 OLTP BENCHMARKS PSDS [[]] Measured -Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 52 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 53 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 54 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 55 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 56 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 57 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 58 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 59 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 60 of 85 APPENDIX B QC2 EPU BENCHMARK PSDS [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 61 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 62 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 63 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 64 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 65 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 66 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 67 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 68 of 85 [[]] Measured - Red [[]] - Green [[]] - Blue NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 69 of 85 APPENDIX C QC2 EPU UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT C.1. VARIATIONS IN PBLE INPUT PARAMETERS Table 7 Nominal, Upper and Lower Bound Parameter Values for QC2 Units Nominal Lower Upper [[ ]] Table 7 gives the nominal values and the upper and lower limits for all the input parameters. The [[ ]] is described in Section 2.2.2. In addition to the content of Table 7, [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 70 of 85 C.2. STEP 1 - SENSITIVITY OF FRFS The goal of this step is to determine which variables in the vessel have an influence in [[

                                                                                                             ]] Mesh Independent Parameters Figure 21 shows results, for high and low frequency respectively, for the DOE [[          ]] The curves for all experiments lay on top of each other. No variability is observed due to these parameters in their variation range.

Figure 22 shows results [[ ]] For this group of variables some differences are observed. By observing the [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 71 of 85

[[ ]] Figure 21. DOE on 

[[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 72 of 85 [[ ]] Figure 22. DOE on [[ ]] Black Thick Line is th e Nominal Experiment NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 73 of 85 Figure 23. FEM Mesh Upstream the Dryer Showing the Regions With [[ ]] [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 74 of 85 Table 8 Changes in [[ ]] Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Table 9 Acoustic Modes (Hz) of the Nominal and Modified Meshes Modes Nominal Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 75 of 85 [[ ]] Figure 24. FRFs for Different FE Meshes With [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 76 of 85 [[]] In view of [[ ]] Table 10 [[ ]] [[ ]] [[ ]] In any case, the curves reproduce each other reasonably well. NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 77 of 85

[[ ]] Figure 25. FRFs With Finer FE Mesh Figure 26 [[                                           ]]

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 78 of 85

  [[ ]] Figure 26.  

[[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 79 of 85 C.3. STEP 2 - UNCERTAINTY IN DRYER LOADS From the previous section, it is clear that [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 80 of 85 [[]] Figure 27. [[ ]] Table 11 [[ ]] [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 81 of 85 Table 12 [[ ]] [[ ]] Uncertainty due to Errors in the Measurement Loop It has been shown in a previous report [11] that this measurement loop, [[ ]] The results are shown in Figure 28 and quantified in Table 13 and Table

14. Table 13 PBLE predictions - Measurement Loop Deviations from Nominal at Low Frequencies Frequency band (Hz) 8 - 10 13 - 16 22 - 28 28 - 34 38 - 46 48 - 58 Upper deviation (%) Lower deviation (%)

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 82 of 85 Table 14 PBLE predictions - Measurement Loop Deviations from Nominal at High Frequencies Frequency band (Hz) 132 - 145 146 - 153

154 - 158

159 - 168 146 - 158 Upper deviation (%) Lower deviation (%) [[]] Figure 28. PBLE Predictions - Uncertai nty Due to the Measurement Loop NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 83 of 85 Uncertainty due to [[ ]] The uncertainty [[ ]] Table 15 [[ ]] Deviation (%) Deviation (%) Table 16 [[ ]] [[ Deviation (%) Deviation (%)

   ]]

NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 84 of 85 C.4. CONSOLIDATED UNCERTAINTY The results are shown in Figu re 29, Table 17 and Table 18. The largest contribution to uncertainty [[ ]] The overall uncertainty remains below 10%, ex cept for the 146 - 153 Hz bands, where it peaks at a value of 12.55%. Table 17 Consolidated Uncertainty - [[ ]] Frequency Bands (Hz) 8 -10 13 - 16 22 - 28 28 - 34 38 - 46 48 - 58 [[ ]] Table 18 Consolidated Uncertainty - [[ ]] Frequency Bands (Hz) 132 - 145 146 - 153

154 - 158 159 - 168 146 - 158 [[ ]] NEDO-33408, Rev. 01 Page 85 of 85 In Figure 29, the PBLE uncertainties are quite small but some bias compared to the measured PSDs remains; this is reconciled by the benchmar k against measured pressures in Section 3.3.2. [[ ]] Figure 29. PBLE from [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix C

Appendix C

ESBWR Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation Methodology, Supplement 1 (NED-334 08, Supplement 1)

Revision 1 of this report was submitted to the NRC by GEH in MFN Letter 09-579, dated August 31, 2009. GEH did not submit a nonproprietary version of the report in accordance with NRC Information Notice 2009-07, Requirements for Submittals, (2): "In instances in which a nonproprietary version would be of no value to the public because of the extent of the proprietary information, the agency does not expect a nonproprietary version to be submitted." The same exclusion is being taken here, and a non-proprietary version of Appendix C is not provided.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix D

Appendix D

GEH BWR Steam Dryer - Plant Base d Load Evaluation (NED-33436)

This appendix contains Revision 0 of NEDO-33436, which was submitted to the NRC by GEH in MFN Letter 08-876, Supplement 1, dated October 14, 2009.

@) HITACHI GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Non-p r oprie/my Ver s ion Licensing Topical Report NEDO-33436 Revision 0 Class I DRF 0000-0087-3726 November 2008 GEH Boiling Water Reactor Steam Dryer -Plant Based Load Evaluation Copyr i g ht 2 00 8 GE H i tachi N ucl ear E ner gy

NEDO-33436 Revision 0 Non-proprie tar y Vers ion IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefu ll y I NFORMAT IO N NOT I CE This is a non-proprietary ve r sio n of NEDC-33436P , which has the proprietary information removed. Porti o ns o f the document that have been removed are indicated by an open and closed bracket as s h own h e r e [[ 11. [MPORTANT NOT I CE REGARDlNG THE CONTENTS OF TH]S REPORT Please Read Caref ull y The infonnation co ntain ed in this do c ument i s furnished for the purpose of obtaining NRC approval for the use of the Plant Based Load Eva lu ation Methodology for GEH Boiling Water Reactor Steam Dryers. The o nl y und e rtakin gs of GE Hitachi Nuclear E n ergy respecting infomlation in tJli s document are contained in the contracts between GE Hitachi Nuclea r Ene r gy and the participating utiliti es in effect at the time thi s report is issued , and n ot hin g co ntain ed in this document sha ll be co n stme d as c han g in g those co ntra cts. The u se of information by anyone other than that for which it i s intended i s not authorized

and with respect to any unauthorized use , GE Hitachi N ucl ear E ner gy make s no r ep re se ntation or warranty , and assumes to liabilit y as to tb e completeness , accuracy , o r usefulness of the inf onna tion contained in this document.

NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietary V er s ion Table of Co nt e nts A cron y ms A nd Abbr ev iat i o ns ............................................................................................. V I Executi v e Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 1. I ntroducti o n.......................... ............................ .................. ..................... . ....... 2 2. Applicabi l ity ............................ ........................... ................................. ........... . ....... 2 2.1 PBLE Applicabi li ty to Operatin g Plants ............ ......................... . ..................... 2 2.2 Geometrical C on s iderations ...................... . 2.2.1 Overa ll Reactor Confi g u r at i on 2.2.2 Steam Dryer C onfi g uration ..... 2.2.3 Main Steam lin e C onfi g uration ............... .3 ............................................................... 3 . ...................................................... 3 ................ 5 2.3 Op e rating C ondition s ......................................................................... . . ............... 6 2.4 Plant Ob s ervation s ...................................................... . . .................................... 6 2.5 PBLE Qua lifi c ation Ba s i s....... ................... .................. . .................................... 7 3 C onclusion s.. ..8 4. Referen c e s ......................................................................................... ................................... 9 1 11 NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietar y Ve r s ion List of Tables Tabl e I Co mpari so n o f P l ant C haract e ri s tic s ............................................................................... 10 I V NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietary V er s ion List of Figures Figur e 1: Rea c t or V ess el Confi g uration .................................................................................... II Fi g ure 2: Steam Flow Path Throu g h Dryer ............................................................................... 12 Figur e 3: T y pi c al St e am Dry e r (BWRl4 S lant Hood De s ign Shown) ........................................ 13 Fi g ure 4: BWR Dry e r Hood D es i g n s........................................................ . ......................... 14 Figure 5: Ori e ntation of Main St e am Noz z le s to S team Dryer.. ................................................ IS Fi g ure 6: T y pi c al Main Steam Line Layout Between RPV and Turbine (plan view) .. . ..... 16 Figur e 7: Typi c al Main Steam Lin e La y out B e twe e n RP V and Turbine (e levation v iew) ........ 17 Fi g ur e 8: MSL La y out Showing S/RV s Located on Sta g nant Branch Lin es ............................. 1 8 Figure 9: Pre ss ure o n Skirt Below C over Plate (1 88" BW Rl3, S quare Hood Dryer) ................ 19 Figure 10: Pre ss ure on Skirt Below Co v er Plat e (2 5 1" BWRl3 , Slant Hood Dryer) .................. 2 0 Figur e II: Pre ss ure on C o ve r Plat e (25 1" BWR.J 4 , C urved Hood Dryer) .................................. 2 1 Fi g ure 12: Pre ss ur e on Skirt Below C over Plate (2 8 0" A BWR, C urved H o od Dryer) .............. 22 Fi g ur e 1 3: PBLE A co u s ti c R eg ion s and Boundari es .................................................................. 23 Figure 14: C ompari s on of Steam Flow o ve r Out e r Hood , BWRl2 and Lat e r Plant s .................. 2 4 v

Acronym I Abbreviation ABWR BWR ESBWR ftls GEH Hz MSL NRC PBLE RPV SRV NEDO-33436 Revision 0 Non-proprietary Version ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Description Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Boiling Water Reactor Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor Feet per second General E l ectric Hitachi Nuclear E n ergy Hertz Mai n Steam Line U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ss ion Plant Based Load Eva lu atio n Reactor Pressure Vessel Safety Relief Valve V I

NE DO-33 4 36 R e vi s i on 0 No n-propri e ta ry Ve r s i o n E XEC U TIV E

SUMMARY

Pl a nt B ased L oa d Eva luati o n (PB LE) r e f e r s t o th e m e th o d o l ogy for d efi nin g th e flu c tu a tin g pr ess u re l o a ds th a t a r e imp ose d up o n the s te am d ryer u se d in th e GE H-d es i g n ed B o iling W at e r Rea c tor s (B WR s). T h e PBL E l o ad d e finiti o n can b e appli ed to a s tru c tural finite e l e m e nt m o d e l o f the s t eam d rye r in o rd er t o d e t e rmin e the s t eam d rye r a lt e rnating s tr esses. Th e PBL E is a ppli c abl e t o B WRs w ith p a rall el b a nk des i g n s t e am d rye r s, includin g tll e BWRl 2 th ro u gh B W R/6 , A B W R (A d v an ced B o ilin g Wa t er R ea ct o r), a nd E S B W R (Eco n o mic S implifi e d B o ilin g W a t er R eac t o r) pr o du ct lin es. Th e PBL E m ode ling a nd a ppli ca ti on m et h o d o l ogy f o r th e ESBW R (R e f e r e n ces 2 a nd 3) we re s ubmitt ed t o the N R C f or r eview a nd ap p r ova l. The N R C rev i ew of R efe r e n ces 2 and 3 includ es th e PBL E m e th o d o l ogy it s elf. T h e r e f o r e , th e d isc u ss i on h e r e in is limit ed t o th e appli c ati o n of the PBL E m et h odo l ogy t o B WRJ2 thr o u g h B WR/6 , a nd ABWR p r odu c t lin es. A s disc u ssed h ere in , th e PB LE m e th o d o l ogy i s ap pli ca bl e an d acce ptabl e for th e BW RJ2 throu g h B WRl6 a nd A B WR p ro du c t lin es du e t o th e evo luti o na ry des i g n of t h e B W R pl a n t and s imilar o p e r a ting c ondi t i o n s. I. INTRODUCTION NE DO-33 4 36 Revi s ion 0 No n-proprietar y Ve r s ion The N R C ha s i ss u e d re vise d g uidanc e , Re g ulator y Guide 1.20 R ev. 3 , to address a co mpr e h e n si v e vibra tion assessment pro g ram acceptab l e for u se in veri f y in g the s tructur a l inte g rit y of r eactor interna l s , including s team d rye rs (R efe ren ce I). The NRC g uidan ce presents indi vi dual analytical , mea s urement , and in s p ec tion pro g ram s. GEH ha s developed th e PBl E for par a ll e l bank ste am dr ye r s co ntain e d in GEH-designed BWRs to address th e anal yt i c al program of the re v i se d NRC g uidan ce. PBl E ref ers to the m e th o d o lo gy for d e fming t he fluctuatin g pr ess ur e load s that ar e impo se d upon the s t eam d ryer u se d in th e GEH-designed Boi lin g Water R eac t ors. The PBl E l o ad definition will b e appl i e d to a s tru ct ural finite e lem e nt mod e l of the s t eam d rye r in order to detennin e th e ste am dry e r alternating s tr esses. The PBl E was s ubmitt e d for N R C re v iew and approva l in Refer ences 2 and 3. Th ese r e fer e n ces pro v id e the theoretical ba s i s and b e nchmarkin g of th e PBlE method that will be applied for determinin g the flu c tuatin g pr ess ur e l oads o n th e ES BWR s t ea m dryer , d esc rib es th e PBl E analytical m o del , d e t e nnin es the biases and un certainties of the PBL E fornlU lati o n and d esc ribe s the application o f th e PBl E m e thod to th e d ev elopment of th e flu c tuatin g pressure l o ad definiti on for ste am dry e r s tru c tural ana l yses. The PBlE i s a three dim e n s ional a co u s tic model of the s team d o me and dryer r eg ion in s ide th e reactor vesse l. [[ 11 Ther e for e , th e PHL E i s applicable t o BWR s w ith para llel bank de s i g n s t e am dryers , including the BWRJ 2 through BWR/6 , A BWR , and ES BWR produ c t line s. The acceptability of th e PBlE m e th o d o lo gy to th e BWRl2 throu g h BWRf6 and ABWR is pre se nted her e in. Th e NRC re v i ew of R e ference s 2 and 3 include s th e PBL E meth o d o l ogy itse l f. Th e d e tail s of th e meth o dol ogy are n o t c han ge d her e in. Therefore , th e di sc u ss ion h e r ein i s limit ed t o th e application of the PBl E m e th o d o lo gy to BWRJ2 thr o u g h BWR/6, and ABWR pr o du c t lin es. 2. APPLICABILITY 2.1 PBLE APPLICABILITY TO OPERATING PLANTS Th e PBlE i s appli ca ble t o BWRs w ith para ll e l bank design s t eam dryer s. Th i s includ es the BWRl2 thr o u g h BWR/6 , A BWR , and ESBWR produ c t li nes. Th e evo luti o na ry d esig n o f the 2 NEDO-33436 Revision 0 Non-proprietary Version BWR plant has resulted in similar reactor vessel , steam dryer , and main s teamline geometrica l configurations , as well as s imilar plant operating conditions. As a re s ult , the range of plant variations that the PBLE mu s t accommodate i s s mall. These plant-to-plant variations in geometry and operating conditions would be addressed in the plant-s pe cific application of the PLBE. In addition , the PBLE prediction s ha ve been benchmarked against [[ ]] taken in operating plant s. The r efo r e , the ESBWR PBLE modeling and application methodology described in Reference s 2 and 3 are al so directly app li cab l e to operating plant s in the BWRJ2 through BWRJ6 and ABWR product line s. 2.2 GEOMETRICAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.2.1 OveraU

Reactor Configuration The overall reactor assembly is s hown in Figure 1. The s team dryer is located in the top of the vessel. The steam se parator a sse mbly , l ocated directly below the steam dryer , form s part of the lower boundary of the PBLE. The s team flow path through the dryer is s hown in Figure 2. Steam is generated in the reactor core and enters the upper plenum and ste am se parators as a two-pha se mixture. The steam separators remove most of the water , se nding moist steam up into the dryer. The c h evron flow path s through the dryer vanes remove almo st all the remaining moi s ture from the steam pr i or to the steam leaving the vessel through the main s team nozzles. The s team separator and dryer configuration i s common to the BWRJ2 through BWRJ6 , ABWR , and ESBWR product line s. PBLE Application [[ II 2.2.2 Steam Dryer Co nfiguration Figure 3 shows the ba s ic configuration and component s for a typical BWR s team dryer. The s ame ba sic GEH BWR s team dryer d es ign has been u se d in BWRl2 through BWRl6 , ABWR , and ESBWR plant s. Thi s ba s ic de s i gn consists of four to six parallel banks s upported by a circumferential ring at about mid height of th e dryer. The bank s consist of hood panel s that direct the stea m flow through the dryer vane assemblies. The s kirt is s u s pended from the s upport ring and extends down belo w the reactor water le ve l and outside the steam se parator assembly. The s kirt forms a water sea l and directs the s team l eaving the separators up through th e vanes. Water removed from the s t e am i s co ll ected in trough s below th e vane assemblies and returned to the RPV water through the drain channels. 3 NE DO-33 4 36 Revi s ion 0 No n-proprietar y Ve r s ion Th e dry e r ho o d s nm parall e l to th e 0-1 8 0° vesse l l ine with the s teamlin es sy mm e tric ab o ut th e 90-270° vess el lin e as s ho w n in Fi g ure 5. The cav it y between the outer h oo d bank and th e vesse l wa ll forms an ex it pl e num for the s t ea m flow le av ing the s t ea m dom e. The s t ea m fl ow ve l oc iti es are l ow where th e fl ow ex it s th e dr ye r bank s and in the s team dome. Th e flow a cc elerat es in th e outer h o od r eg ion a s th e flow s co ll ect in exit plenum and accelerate into the s t ea mlin es. Most of the pre ss ur e loadin g acting on the dryer occurs on the o ut er hood s as th e ste am flow s accelerate through this exit pl e num r eg i on. Four basic dryer h oo d s hape s ha ve b een u se d in the operatin g plant s t ea m dr ye r s. Th ese hood s hap es are s hown in Fi g ur e 4. -BWR/2 s and BWR/3s u se s quar e hood d rye r s. The BWRl2 s team dry er is s imilar to a s quar e h oo d dr yer; th e diff e r e nce between th e two designs i s that th e va ne assemblies are tilted approximate l y 20° off ve rtical in the BWRl2 de s i g n. How eve r , the BWR/2 exterior hood s hap e is the sa m e a s the s quar e hood dryer. -Most BWRl4s u se the s l ant hood d esig n. -So me o f the l ater BWR/4 plant s and lat e r r e a c tor de sig n s u se d th e curve d ho o d dr ye r design. -Th e Quad C iti es r e plac e ment dryer u sed a flat pl a te s lant hood de s i g n , wh il e the Susquehanna r e pla ce ment dryer replicated the orig inal curved h oo d s hap e. PBLE Application In the PBLE m o delin g , the vesse l acoustic re g ion i s defined b y [[ II Thi s proc ess a ll ows th e PBL E application m e th o d o l ogy to a cco mmodat e diff e r e nt vesse l s i zes , RPV h ea d s hap es , and dry e r d es i g n s. Thi s pro cess al so e n s ur es that the load d e finition ge n e ra ted b y th e PBLE aco u s ti c m o del will acc uratel y mat c h th e dryer s tru c tural m ode l. 4 NE DO-33 4 36 Revi s ion 0 No n-proprietar y Ve r s ion 2.2.3 Main Steamline Configuration Th e main s t ea mlin e co nfi g uration for th e BWRl2 throu g h BWRJ6 , A BWR , and ESBWR product lin es is s imilar a cross the p l ant prod u c t lin es , p a rti c ularl y within th e cont ainment dryw e ll w h e r e the limited s pa ce di cta ted a s tandardi ze d pip e routing. Figures 6 and 7 s how a t y pi ca l BWR s teamlin e la y out from th e RP V to the turbine for a plant with a Mark I co ntainm e nt. The main s te a m lin es (MSL s) ex it th e vessel sy mm e tri cally offse t about 1 8-2 0° from th e 90-270° vesse l line , then co ll ect and e xit the dryw e ll a l ong the 0-1 8 0° vess el lin e toward s the turbine. Out s ide the d ryw ell , th e MSL co nfi g uration v arie s from plant to plant , ([ II The different containment types introduce on l y a minor differ e n ce in th e main s team lin e co nfi g uration w itbin tb e dry we ll. In th e Mark I and Mark 11 co ntainm en ts , the s t e amlin es dr op do wn and ex it the d rywe ll at an e l eva tion near th e b o ttom of the RPV. For th e Mark m , ABWR , an d ESBWR co ntainm e nt s , the s team line s do not drop as far and exit th e d rywe ll at roughly mid-h eig ht o f the RPV. [[ 11 A few plant s ha ve a s ta g nant branch lin e , or de adl eg , o n so me of the main s t ea m lin es. This s t ea mlin e co nfi gura ti on is s ho w n in F i g ur e 8. Th ese deadlegs serve as a mountin g l oc ati o n for s afet y reli e f va l ves (S R Vs). Aco u s ti ca ll y , the deadl eg pr ov id es a r eso nating c hamber that may amplify the l ow fr e qu e n cy pressure content of th e flu c tuatin g pr ess ur e load s a c ting o n th e dr ye r. Th e PBL E m o delin g and q ualifi ca ti o n ba s i s pre se nt ed in Reference 3 includes a b e n c hmark co mpari so n o f tJl e PBL E prediction a ga in s t [[ ]] f or a p l ant w ith deadl egs. Th e r efore , th e PBL E i s qualifi e d for app li ca tion to plant s with dead J egs. BW RJ2 plant s diff e r from th e typi ca l s team lin e arrangement in that th ese plant s ha ve o nl y t wo s t ea mlin es instead of four. The s teamline s f o r the se plant s exit th e vesse l at 90-270° th e n follow th e sa m e r o utin g as the o th er Ma rk I plant s. [[ II The S R V sta ndpip es cou ld ge n e rat e acoustic re so nan ces that ca n aco ll s ti ca ll y cou ple w ith th e RP V and produ ce a pr ess ur e l o ad o n th e dryer. Wh e th e r a s t an dpipe will ge n e rate a resonance 5 NE DO-33 4 36 R e vi s i on 0 No n-propri e ta ry Ve r s i o n a nd , if so , w h e th er that reso n a n ce co up l es w ith t h e RP V i s hi g hl y pl a n t-s p ec ific a nd d epe nd s o n seve r a l geo m e tric a nd fl ow d epe nd e nt par a m e te rs. [[ II PBLE Application [[ II 2.3 OPERATING CONDITIO N S Th e ev olu t i o n ary nature o f th e BWR d es i g n ha s dictat e d th a t th e r eac tor o p era tin g co nditi o n s (e.g. pr ess ur es , t e mp e ratur es, fl ow ve l o citie s) remain w i thin a f a irl y narro w ran ge in o rd er t o e n s ur e th a t the p l a nt o p e ra t i o n are w ithin th e ex p e ri e nc e ba se and s upp or tin g li ce n s in g ba ses (e.g., fu e l t h e rm allhy drauli c perfo rman ce t es t s , tran s i e nt and a cc id e nt a nal ysis co d es). Plant p owe r o u t pu t was initiall y a cco llull o d a t e d in the o ri g ina l pl a nt des i g n s b y sca l i n g th e s i ze of th e r eac t o r a nd co mp o n e nt s, w hi ch k eep the o p e r a ting c ond i ti o n s w ithin th e ex p e ri e n ce base. [[ ]] R e f e r e n ces 2 a nd 3 d esc rib e h ow th ese p a r a m e t ers and p ro p e rti es are a ddr essed f or a pl a nt-s p ec i fic appli ca t io n. 2.4 PLANT OBSERVATIONS S t eam d rye rs o n seve ral plant s ha ve b ee n in s t ru m e nt e d. [[ II F i g ur es 9 th ro u g h 1 2 s h ow th e fre qu e ncy co n te nt of th e press ur e l oa d ac t i ng o n th e d rye r. Tabl e I p rov id es a co m p ar iso n o f th e pl a nt c h a r ac t eris ti cs fo r th e f o ur p lant s fr o m w hi c h th e m eas u re m e nt s in Figu r es 9 th ro u g h 12 were t a k e n. I[ 6 NEDO-33436 Revision 0 Non-proprie ta ry Vers i on ]] The hi g h quality SRV resonance peaks occur above 1 00 Hz. The frequency i s dependent on the SRV branch lin e cav it y depth; w h et h er or not the SRV aco ll st i c r esona n ce act uall y produces a pressure l oad that acts o n th e drye r depends on w h et h e r or n o t the SRV acoust i ca ll y coup l es w ith t h e vesse l through the steam line. [( II These observat i ons r e inf o r ce the co nclu s i o n th at the PBLE i s applicab l e across the GE BWR product lin es. n 2.5 PBLE QUALIFI CA TION BASIS The PBLE m et h odO l ogy h as bee n benchmarked against [[ instrumented replacement dryers in ope r at in g plants. I n Reference 2 , t h e benchmarked aga in st the d ata taken a t Q u a d C iti es U nit 2. II II taken o n PBL E was In Reference 3 , the PBLE was benchmarked aga in st the data taken at Susquehanna Un it 1. [[ ]] These two b e n c hm arks provide co nfid e n ce th at the PBLE w ill prov id e accurate predictions over the full frequency range of int e r est for any plant app l ication. 7

3. CONCLUSIONS NE DO-33 4 36 R e vi s i on 0 No n-propri e ta ry Ve r s i o n Th e PBL E mod e lin g and ap pli ca ti on m e th o d o l ogy d escr ib e d in R efe r e n ces 2 and 3 ar e a ppl ica bl e to BWRs w ith para ll el b a nk d es i g n s t eam d rye r s. Th is i n cl ud es t h e B WRJ 2 thr o u g h B WR/6 , A B W R , a nd ESBWR p ro du c t lin es. Th e evo luti o n ary d esig n of t he B WR plant h as r es ult e d in s imil ar r e a cto r vesse l , s t e am d rye r , a nd m a in s t ea mlin e geo m e tri c al co nfi g urati o n s , as we ll as s imilar plant ope ratin g co nditi o n s. [[ 11 Th ese pl a nt-t o-pl a nt v ari a ti o n s in geo m e t ry and o p e r a tin g co ndit io ns a re a ddr esse d i n th e plant-spec ifi c appli c at ion of th e PLB E. ([ ]] This a ppr o a c h a ll ows th e P B L E t o b e a p pl ie d to a wi d e var i e ty o f co nfi g ur a ti o n s. In additi o n , th e PBLE p r e di c ti o n s h ave b een b e n c hm ar k ed a ga in s t [[ ]] t a k e n in o p e ratin g pl a nts a nd pr ov i de co n fi d e n ce t hat th e PB LE w ill prov id e acc u ra t e pr e di c ti o n s ove r th e full fr e qu e n cy r a n ge of int e r est f o r a n y plant a p pli c ati o n. Th e r e f o r e , th e ES B W R PBL E m o d e lin g and appli c ati on m e th o d o l ogy d es c r ib e d in R e f e r e n ces 2 a nd 3 are a l so dir ect l y a ppli cab l e to o p e ratin g pl a nt s in th e BWR/2 thr o u gh B WR/6 and A B W R pr o du ct l i n es. 8

4. REFERENCES NEDO-33436 Revision 0 Non-proprie ta ry Vers i on I. Regulatory Gu id e 1.20 Rev. 3, " Co mpr e h ensive V ibrati o n Assessme nt Program for Reactor Int erna l s Durin g P reope rati o nal a nd Initial Start up Testing ," Marc h 2007. 2. NEDC-33408P, " ESBW R S t eam Dryer -Plant Based Load Eva lu ation Met h odo l ogy ," l'ebruary 2008. 3. NEDC*33408 P Supp l ement I , " ESBWR S t ea m Dryer -Plan t Based Load Eva lu at i o n Methodology

," October 2008. 9 P r o du ct Li n e BWRl 3 BWRl 3 (Quad C itie s 2)' BWRl4 (S u s q u ehanna 1)* ABWR NE DO-33 4 36 Revi s ion 0 No n-proprietar y Ve r s ion Tab le 1 Compar i so n o f Pl a nt C h aracter i st i cs RPV Average D ia m e t er MSL Dryer Hood Ve l ocity D es i g n (in c h) (ft f') 1 88 149 Square 25 1 200 S l anted 25 1 129 Curved 280 139 C ur ve d , Plant s u se d for PBLE benchmarking. 10 Co n ta inm e n t Fig ur e T y p e Mark I 9 Mark I 1 0 Mark II II ABWR 1 2 Steam Dryer Reactor Vessel NEDO-33436 R ev i s i o n 0 Non-proprietary Version Steam Seoarators Figure 1: Reactor Vessel Co nfiguration II NE DO-33 4 36 Revi s i o n 0 No n-pr op ri etary Ve r s i o n P i Dnrin Trough A SI .. ", Flow P e.f Gnlled PIolot n (may be .... vane l>II1Io l.nd l o. inle t) Dryer Pre ssure Drop = Pi

• P o S c h ematic: of ill Typica' Bank F i g ure 2: Steam Flow Path Thr o u gh Dryer 1 2 NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietar y Ve r s ion Uning R od E y e U pper R I ng L ower Support R i ng RPVGuide Rod lower Guide Figure 3: Typical Steam Dryer (BWRl4 S l ant Hood Design Shown) 1 3 High St.H. a t 0I.>g0na1 BrKeA tt Khment PlatH Squar. Hoods BWRll DKig" 48-in.High NE DO-33436 R ev i s ion 0 No n-proprietary Vers ion Interio< v"nKal SuP9O<t PlarH 11<<1",<<1 compar<<110 diogottal

"'ox ..... , * 'J I, I j S ianied Hood s BWRl4 StyIoe ()H;g" l'trloriMed PlatH S t e.m Fk:>w I I ,

• I Curved Hooch BWRlS/1'>

Style 0Mig" 7Nn , H ighVallH P<!ffofll@dPlal es OptImID!d SINm Fk:>w Slant Hoods Ore$den/Quad Cities Reptacement Oe si 9" 72*in, High Vanes Pefforaled Pia l es Optimiwl Steam Flow Figure 4: BWR Dryer Hood Designs 14 --, , , NE DO-33 4 36 R ev i s ion 0 No n-propri e ta ry Ve r s i o n

• I \ J I< I '. i: h',I[l A ! I I I ! I I I '/fi;;;':., * ..... J "'-oVw..c(SIN'" ery..OuCI!f Figure 5: Orientation of Ma in Steam Nozz l es to Steam Dryer 1 5 NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietar y Ve r s ion ---. Figure 6: Typical Main Steam Line Layout Between RPV and Turbine (plan view) 16 NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietar y Ve r s ion Figure 7: Typical Main Stea m Line Layout Between RPV and T urbine (e l evat ion view) 1 7 NE DO-33436 R ev i s ion 0 No n-proprietary Ve r s i o n Safety and Relief Valves Stag n ant branch of MSL Figure 8: MSL Layout Showing S/RVs Located on Stagnant Branch Lines 1 8

[[ NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietar y Ve r s ion II Figure 9: Pressure on Skirt Below Cover Plate (188" BWRl3 , Square Hood Dryer) 19 [[ NEDO-33436 Revision 0 Non-proprie ta ry Vers i on II Figure 10: Pressure on Skirt Below Cover Plate (251" BWRl3, S lant Hood Dr ye r) No t e: Both fi gures s h ow the sa m e data. The sca l e h as been cha n ged on th e l owe r fi gure to better show the frequency co nt e nt o ut s ide the 1 50-160 Hz range. 20 [[ NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietar y Ve r s ion Figure II: Pressure on Cover Plate (251" BWR/4 , Curved Hood Dryer) 2 1 II [[ NE DO-33 4 36 Revi s i o n 0 No n-proprietar y Ve r s i on II Figure 12: Pressure on Skirt Below Cover Plate (280" ABWR , Curved Hood Dr ye r) 22 [[ NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietar y Ve r s ion Figure 13: PBLE Acollstic Regions and Boundaries 23 II [[ NE DO-33 4 3 6 Revi s ion 0 N on-proprietar y Ve r s ion II Figure 14: Comparison of Steam Flow oyer Outer Hood , BWR/2 and Later Plants 24}}