ML070180161

Operating Report for Cycle 16 Operation with Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assemblies

ML070180161
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	01/09/2007
From:	Morris J Duke Energy Corp
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML070180161 (26)

Text

JAMES R. MORRIS Vice President Energy.

Catawba Nuclear Station 4800 Concord Rd. / CN01 VP York, SC 29745-9635 803 831 4251 803 831 3221 fax January 9, 2007 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:

Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Duke Power Company LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)

Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket Number 50-413 Operating Report for Cycle 16 Operation with Mixed Oxide (MOX)

Fuel Lead Assemblies

Reference:

Letter from NRC to H.B.

Barron, Duke, "Final Safety Evaluation for Duke Topical Report DPC-NE-1005P, "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX","

dated August 20, 2004 The reference letter constituted the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) associated with Duke's use of MOX lead assemblies at Catawba.

In Section 1.0 of the SE (item 4),

the NRC stipulated that Duke will prepare an operating report for each operating cycle with MOX fuel lead assemblies and for each unit operating with partial MOX fuel cores until the equilibrium cycle is reached.

Each operating report will contain comparisons of predicted to measured monthly power distribution maps and monthly boron concentration letdown values.

Duke will provide each cycle operating report to the NRC within 60 days of the end of the fuel cycle.

Pursuant to the above requirement, this letter provides the associated report.

This submittal contains information that is proprietary to Duke.

The specific information that is proprietary in Attachment 1 is identified by enclosure in brackets.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Duke requests that this information be withheld from public disclosure. is a redacted version of the 4oo(

www. duke-energy. com

.,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 January 9, 2007 report with proprietary information removed.

An affidavit is included that attests to the proprietary nature of the information in this submittal.

There are no regulatory commitments contained in this submittal.

Inquiries on this matter should be directed to L.J. Rudy at (803) 831-3084.

Very truly yours, James R.

Morris LJR/s Attachments

.U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 January 9, 2007 xc (with attachments):

W.D.

Travers, Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St.,

SW, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303-8931 J.F. Stang, Jr.,

NRC Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 0-8 H4A Rockville, MD 20852-2738 A.T. Sabisch, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station

I AFFIDAVIT OF James R. Morris

1.

I am Vice President of Duke Power Company LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke),

and as such have the responsibility of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear plant licensing and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of Duke.

2.

I am making this affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.390 of the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and in conjunction with Duke's application for withholding which accompanies this affidavit.

3.

I have knowledge of the criteria used by Duke in designating information as proprietary or confidential.

4.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390, Duke seeks to protect from disclosure specific analytical information contained in the document "Special Operation Report for Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 16 with Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assemblies."

5.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.390(b) (4),

the following is furnished for consideration by the NRC in determining whether the proprietary information sought to be protected should be withheld from public disclosure:

(i)

The information is of a type that is customarily held in confidence by Duke.

This information is proprietary to Duke, and Duke seeks to protect it as such.

The information consists of analysis methodology details, analysis results, and supporting data that provide a competitive advantage to Duke.

Duke submits that a rational basis therefore exists for treatment of this information as proprietary.

(ii)

The information was transmitted to the NRC in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.390, it is to be received in confidence by the NRC.

(iii)

The information sought to be withheld is not available from public sources to the best of Duke's knowledge and belief.

(iv)

Public disclosure of the proprietary information Duke seeks to protect is likely to cause substantial harm to Duke's competitive position within the meaning of 10 CFR 2.390(b) (4) (v).

The proprietary information has substantial commercial value to Duke.

For example:

(a)

Duke uses this information to reduce vendor and consultant expenses associated with supporting the operation and licensing of its nuclear power plants.

(b)

Duke could sell the information to nuclear utilities, vendors, and consultants for the purpose of supporting the operation and licensing of other nuclear power plants.

(c)

The subject information could only be duplicated by competitors at similar expense to that incurred by Duke.

of (d)

Public disclosure of this information is likely to cause harm to Duke because it would allow competitors in the nuclear industry to benefit from the results of a significant development program without requiring a commensurate expense or allowing Duke to recoup a portion of its expenditures or benefit from the sale of the information.

For all of the reasons discussed above, Duke requests that this proprietary information be withheld from public disclosure in its entirety.

I affirm that I, James R. Morris, am the person who subscribed my name to the foregoing, and that all of the matters and facts herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

James R. Morris, Vice President Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of

,v2007.

Witness my hand and official seal.

Nota y Public(T My commission expires:

/2/

SEAL.

Non-Proprietary Version of Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 16 Operating Report

Special Operation Report for Catawba Unit I Cycle 16 with Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assemblies Introduction Duke Power utilized the core design methodology defined in reference 1 for Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 16 (C1C16) which contains four mixed oxide (MOX) fuel lead assemblies.

In reference 2 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) transmitted the safety evaluation which documented NRC approval of reference 1. That safety evaluation identified Duke commitments to submit a startup report and an operation report for each fuel cycle containing MOX fuel.

The startup report identified in reference 3 compares predicted to measured data from zero power physics tests and power distribution maps taken during initial power escalation of C1C16. The startup report also describes the core arrangement, fuel assembly batch characteristics, burnable poison loading, control rod locations, incore detector locations, and MOX fuel assembly placement.

The operation report to follow compares measured to predicted data from monthly power distribution maps and soluble boron concentration letdown. MOX fuel lead assemblies are located in core locations C-08, H-03, H-13, and N-08. All 4 MOX lead assemblies are located in instrumented core locations.

Flux Maps Flux maps taken after the initial power escalation are tabulated below. All maps were taken at 100 %FP with steady state core conditions.

Figures 1 through 17 compare predicted and measured assembly average relative power factors. All acceptance criteria were met for all assemblies for each flux map taken.

Flux Map EFPD

%FP FCM/1/16/012 16 100 FCM/1/16/013 44 100 FCM/1/16/014 72 100 FCM/1/16/015 100 100 FCM/1/16/016 128 100 FCM/1/16/017 155 100 FCM/1/16/018 183 100 FCM/1/16/019 212 100 FCM/1/16/020 240 100 FCM/1/16/021 268 100 FCM/1/16/022 295 100 FCM/1/16/023 323 100 FCM/1/16/024 357 100 FCM/1/16/025 385 100 FCM/1/16/026 413 100 FCM/1/16/027 441 100 FCM/1/16/028 476 100

Soluble Boron Letdown A comparison of measured and predicted reactivity letdown is performed at approximately 30 EFPD intervals throughout the cycle depletion. Each measured boron concentration is normalized to hot full power, equilibrium xenon and samarium, a reference hot moderator temperature, all control rods out of core, and a reference boron-10 content in the soluble boron. The table below summarizes soluble boron letdown measurements and compares each to the predicted value. The acceptance criteria of 50 PPMB is easily achieved for all measurements.

Cycle Exposure EFPD 4

9 15 22 29 36 43 63 91 119 147 175 203 231 259 287 316 342 349 376 406 432 460 488 Measured Predicted Difference PPMB PPMB PPMB If 10 10 4

7 9

6 13 16 6

8 11 16 11 13 15 13 18 12 21 0

1 8

5 8

\\I'-

J Conclusion Inclusion of four MOX fuel lead assemblies was accomplished without significant perturbation to normal low leakage fuel management techniques. Flux map power distribution measurements compared well with prediction. The MOX fuel lead assemblies operated at power levels that are representative of feed fuel, but were never the highest power assembly in the core.

As with all fuel cycles, Duke will continue to monitor the performance of the fuel throughout the C1C17 fuel cycle. In accordance with the commitments in Reference 2, Duke will document C1C17 startup and operating performance in separate reports that will be provided to the NRC within 60 days of the final power escalation flux map and within 60 days of the end of cycle.

References

1. DPC-NE-1005-P-A, Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4 / SIMULATE-3 MOX, Duke Power Company, August 2004.

2.

Letter, Robert E. Martin (USNRC) to H.B. Barron (Duke), Final Safety Evaluation for Duke Topical Report DPC-NE-1005-P, Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/ SIMULATE-3 MOX, August 20, 2004.

3.

Letter, James R. Morris (Duke) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 16 Startup Report, August 3, 2005.

Figure 1 FCM/1/16/012 MWHA 23Jun05 16 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

0 C

B A

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

/

Deviation RMS 1.7%

Core Max

-6.6% at P-13 MOX Max

-3.8% at H-13

Figure 2 FCM/1/16/013 MWJB 21Jun05 44 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

I 15 J

Deviation RMS 1.8%

Core Max

-6.5% at P-13 MOX Max

-3.4% at H-13

Figure 3 FCM/1/16/014 MWJC 18Aug05 72 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Deviation RMS 1.7%

Core Max

-6.6% at P-13 MOX Max

-3.8% at H-13

Figure 4 FCM/1/16/015 MWHA 15Sep05 100 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Deviation RMS 1.7%

Core Max

-6.6% at P-13 MOX Max

-3.2% at H-13

Figure 5 FCMIII161016 MWHA 13Oct05 128 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 Deviation RMS 1.7%

Core Max

-6.3% at P-13 MOX Max

-3.6% at H-13

Figure 6 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 FCM/I/16/017 MWJB 09Nov05 155 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

Deviation RMS 1.6%

Core Max

-5.9% at B-03 MOX Max

-3.0% at H-13

Figure 7 FCM/1/16/018 MWHA 07Dec05 183 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 J

Deviation RMS 1.5%

Core Max

-5.9% at B-03 MOX Max

-3.6% at H-13

Figure 8 FCM/1116/019 MWKD 05Jan06 212 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 15

)

Deviation RMS 1.4%

Core Max

-5.2% at B-03 MOX Max

-2.8% at H-113

Figure 9 FCMI/II61020 MWKJ 02Feb06 240 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Deviation RMS 1.2%

Core Max

-5.0% at B-13 MOX Max

-3.1% at C-08

Figure 10 FCM/1/16/021 MWKN 02Mar06 268 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

/

Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max

-4.4% at B-03 MOX Max

-2.6% at C-08

Figure 11 FCM/1/16/022 MVWHA 30Mar06 295 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

10 11 12 13 14 15 J

Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max

-4.7% at B-03 MOX Max

-3.3% at H-13

Figure 12 FCM/11161023 MWJG 27Apr06 323 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

I$

15\\

Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max

-4.7% at N-02 MOX Max

-3.1% at H-13

Figure 13 FCM/I/16/024 MWHA 22Jun06 357 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1$

15 Deviation RMS 1.0%

Core Max

-3.8% at B-13 MOX Max

-2.4% at H-03

Figure 14 FCM/1/16/025 MWLL 20Jul06 385 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 (

J' Deviation RMS 0.9%

Core Max

-3.5% at B-03 MOX Max

-3.1% at C-08

C Figure 15 FCM/1116/026 MWJN 17Aug06 413 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 f 2

3 4

5 1 1, \\

Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max

-4.7% at N-02 MOX Max

-2.4% at C-08

Figure 16 FCM11/16/027 MWJP 14Sep06 441 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max

-4.7% at P-03 MOX Max

-2.7% at C-08 1<

i~7.

~

Figure 17 FCM/1/16/028 MWJQ 19Oct06 476 EFPD 100 %FP R

P N

M L

K J

H G

F E

D C

B A

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

/

Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max

-4.8% at B-03 MOX Max 4.0% at H-13