ML072280316

Cooper, Gnf Additional Information Regarding the Requested Changes to the Technical Specification SLMCPR - Cooper Cycle 24 (GNF-A Report No. eDRF-0000-0046-6413), Enclosure 2

ML072280316
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	05/04/2006
From:	Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NLS2007032 eDRF-0000-0046-6413
Download: ML072280316 (28)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:NLS2007032 Enclosure 2 Page 1 of 24 ENCLOSURE 2"GNF Additional Information Regarding the Requested Changes to the Technical Specification SLMCPR -Cooper Cycle 24" (GNF-A Report No. eDRF-0000-0046-6413) Non-Proprietary Version Cooper Nuclear Station NRC Docket 50-298, License DPR-46 GNF Attachment 5/4/2006 eDRF -0000-0046-6413 GNF Additional Information Regarding the Requested Changes to the Technical Specification SLMCPR Cooper Cycle 24 Cooper Cycle 24 Page I of 23, GNF Attachment Notice Proprietary information of GNF has been removed from this non-proprietary version. The information removed was contained between opening double brackets ( )and closing double brackets ( ).Notice Page 2 of 23 GNF Attachment Table of Contents 1.0 M ETHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. M AJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO SLM CPR CHANG] ......................................................................................... 4 2.2. DEVIATIONS IN NRC APPROVED UNCERTAINTIES ......................................................................................... 5 2 .2 .1 .R -F a c to r ................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.2. Core F/ow Rale and Random Elfective TIP1 Reading ............................................................................. .2.3. DEPARTURE FROM NRC APPROVED M ETHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 6 2.4. FUEL AXIAL POWER SHAPE PENALTY. ......................................................................... ................ 6 2.5. M ETHODOLOGY RESTRICTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.6. M ININIUM CORE FLOW CONDITION ................................................................................................................ 7 2.7. LIM TING CONTROL ROD PATTERNS ..................................................................................... .......... 7 2 .8 .C O R E M O N ITO R IN G S Y STE M .......................................................................................................................... 8 2 .9 .P O WE R F LO W M A P ......................................................................................................................................... 8 2 .1 0 .C O R E L O A D IN G D IA G RA M .......................................................................................................................... 8 2 .11 .F IG U R E R E FE R E N C E S ............................................................................................... .................................. 8 2.12. ADDITIONAL SLMCPR LICENSING CONDITIONS .............................................. 8 2 .1 3 .S U M M A R Y .................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.0 REFERENCES

................................................................................................................................................ 9 List of Figures FIGURE 1. CURRENT CYCLE CORE LOADING DIAGRAM .............................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 2. PREVIOUS CYCLE CORE LOADING DIAGRAM .............................................................................................. I I FIGURE 3. FIGURE 4.1 FROM NEDC-32,601 -P-A ........................................... .............. .................. 12 FIGURE 4. FIGURE 111.5-1 FROM NEDC-32601 P-A ........................................................................ 13 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 111.5-2 FROM NEDC-32601P-A ............................................................................................... 14 List of Tables T A BI.E I. D E SC R IPT IO N O F C O R E ................................................................................................................................. 15 TABLE 2. SLM CPR C..\LCULATION M ETHODOLOGIES ............................................................................................. 16 TABLE 3. M ONTE CARLO CALCULATED SLM CPR vs. ESTIMATE ......................................................................... 18 TABLE 4. NON-POWER DISTRIBUTION UNCERTAINTIES .............................................................................................. 19 TABLE5. POWER DISTRIBUTION UNCERTAINTIES ....................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 6. CRITICAL POWER UNCERTAINTIES ............................................................................................................... 23 Table of Contents Page 3 of 23 GNF Attachment

1.0 Methodology

GNF performed the Cooper Cycle 24 SLMCPR limit calculation in accordance to NEDE-2401 I-P-A "General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel" (Revision

15) using the following NRC approved methodologies and uncertainties:

• NEDC-32601P-A "Methodology and Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR Evaluations" (August 1999).* NEDC-32694P-A "Power Distribution Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR Evaluations" (August 1999).* NEDC-32505P-A "R-Factor Calculation Method for GEl 1, GE1 2 and GEI3 Fuel" (Revision I July 1999).* NEDO-10958-A "General Electric BWR Thermal Analysis Basis (GETAB): Data, Correlation and Design Application" (January 1977).2.0 Discussion

2.1. Major

Contributors to SLMCPR Change In general, the calculated safety limit is dominated by two key parameters: (1) flatness of the core bundle-by-bundle MCPR distribution, and (2) flatness of the bundle pin-by-pin power/R-factor distribution. Greater flatness in either parameter yields more rods susceptible to boiling transition and thus a higher calculated SLMCPR. MIP (MCPR Importance Parameter) measures the core bundle-by-bundle MCPR distribution and RIP (R-factor Importance Parameter) measures the bundle pin-by-pin power/R-factor distribution. The impact of the fuel loading pattern on the calculated Two Loop Operation (TLO) SLMCPR using rated core power and rated core flow conditions has been correlated to the parameter MIPRIP, which combines the MIP and RIP values.Table 3 presents the MIP and RIP parameters for the previous cycle and the current cycle along with the TLO SLMCPR estimate using the MIPRIP correlation. If the minimum core flow case is applicable, the TLO SLMCPR estimate is also provided for that case although the MIPRIP correlation is only applicable to the rated core flow case. This is done only to provide some reasonable assessment basis of the minimum core flow case trend. Table 3 in addition presents estimated impacts on the TLO SLMCPR due to methodology deviations, penalities, and/or uncertainties deviations from approved values. Based on the MIPRIP correlation and any impacts due to deviations from approved values, a final estimated TLO SLMCPR is determined. Table 3 also provides the actual calculated Monte Carlo SLMCPRs. Given the bias and uncertainty in the MIPRIP correlation [[ ]] and the inherent variation in the Monte Carlo results 1 ]], the change in the Cooper Cycle 24 calculated Monte Carlo TLO SLMCPR using rated core power and rated core flow conditions is consistent with the corresponding estimated TLO SLMCPR value.AMIethodology Page 4 of 23 GNF Attachment

2.2. Deviations

in NRC Approved Uncertainties Tables 4 and 5 provide a list of NRC approved uncertainties along with values actually used. A discussion of deviations from these NRC approved values follows; all of which are conservative relative to NRC approved values. Also estimated impact on the SLMCPR is provided in Table 3 for each deviation. 2.2.1. R-Factor At this time, GNF has generically increased the GEXL R-Factor uncertainty from [[]] to account for an increase in channel bow due to the emerging unforeseen phenomena called control blade shadow corrosion-induced channel bow, which is not accounted for in the approved R-Factor uncertainty. The step "o RPEAK" in Figure 4.1 from NEDC-32601P-A (which has been provided for convenience in the "Figure References" section of this attachment) is affected by this deviation. Reference 4 technically justifies that a GEXL R-Factor uncertainty of [[ ]] accounts for a channel bow uncertainty of up to [[ I].Currently, Cooper has not experienced any control blade shadow corrosion induced channel bow and is not expected to experience any in Cycle 24 .I].2.2.2. Core Flow Rate and Random Effective TIP Reading At this time, GNF has not been able to show that the NRC approved process to calculate the SLMCPR only at the rated core power and rated core flow condition is adequately bounding relative to the SLMCPR calculated at rated core power and minimum core flow, see Reference 5.The minimum core flow condition can be more limiting due to the control rod pattern used.GNF has modified the NRC approved process for determining the SLMCPR to include analysis at the rated core power and minimum licensed core flow point in addition to analysis at the rated core power and rated core flow point. GNF believes this modification is conservative and may in the future provide justification that the original NRC approved process is adequately bounding.For the TLO calculations performed at 75% core flow, the approved uncertainty values for the core flow rate (2.5%) and the random effective TIP reading (1.2%) are conservatively adjusted by dividing them by 75/100. The steps "5 CORE FLOW" and "5 TIP (INSTRUMENT)" in Figure 4.1 from NEDC-32601P-A (which has been provided for convenience in the "Figure References" section of this attachment) are affected by this deviation, respectively. Historically, these values have been construed to be somewhat dependent on the core flow conditions as demonstrated by the fact that higher values have always been used when performing Single Loop Operation (SLO) calculations. It is for this reason that GNF determined that it is appropriate to consider an increase in these two uncertainties when the core flow is reduced. The amount of increase is determined in a conservative way. For both parameters it is Discussion Page 5 of 23 GNF Attachment assumed that the absolute uncertainty remains the same as the flow is decreased so that the percentage uncertainty increases inversely proportional to the change in core flow. This is conservative relative to the core flow uncertainty since the variability in the absolute flow is expected to decrease somewhat as the flow decreases. For the random effective TIP uncertainty, there is no reason to believe that the percentage uncertainty should increase as the core flow decreases for TLO. Nevertheless, this uncertainty is also increased as is done in the more extreme case for SLO primarily to preserve the historical precedent established by the SLO evaluation. Note that the TLO condition is different than the SLO condition because for TLO there is no expected tilting of the core radial power shape.The treatment of the core flow and random effective TIP reading uncertainties is based on the assumption that the signal to noise ratio deteriorates as core flow is reduced. GNF believes this is conservative and may in the future provide justification that the original uncertainties (non-flow dependent) are adequately bounding.The core flow and random TIP reading uncertainties used in the SLO low core flow SLMCPR analysis remain the same as in the rated core flow SLO SLMCPR analysis because these uncertainties (which are substantially larger than used in the TLO analysis) already account for the effects of operating at reduced core flow.2.3. Departure from NRC Approved Methodology No departures from NRC approved methodologies were used in the Cooper Cycle 24 SLMCPR calculations. 2.4. Fuel Axial Power Shape Penalty At this time, GNF has determined that higher uncertainties and non-conservative biases in the GEXL correlations for the various types of axial power shapes (i.e., inlet, cosine, outlet and double hump) could potentially exist relative to the NRC approved methodology values, see References 3, 6 and 7. The following table identifies, by marking with an "X", this potential for each GNF product line currently being offered: IDis.YCIS..ioll Page 6 of 23 GNF Attachment 11 If the limiting bundles in the SLMCPR calculation exhibit an axial power shape identified by this table, GNF penalizes the GEXL critical power uncertainties to conservatively account for the impact of the axial power shape. Table 6 provides a list of the GEXL critical power uncertainties determined in accordance to the NRC approved methodology contained in NEDE-2401 I-P-A along with values actually used.For the limiting bundles, the fuel axial power shapes in the SLMCPR analysis were examined to determine the presence of axial power shapes identified in the above table. These power shapes were not found; therefore, no power shape penalties were applied to the calculated Cooper Cycle 24 SLMCPR values.2.5. Methodology Restrictions The four restrictions identified on Page 3 of NRC's Safety Evaluation relating to the General Electric Licensing Topical Reports NEDC-32601P, NEDC-32694P, and Amendment 25 to NEDE-2401 1-P-A (March HI, 1999) are addressed in References 1, 2, and 3.No new GNF fuel designs are being introduced in Cooper Cycle 24; therefore the NEDC-32505-P-A statement ".if new fuel is introducted, GENE must confirm that the revised R-Factor method is still valid based on new test data." is not applicable.

2.6. Minimum

Core Flow Condition For Cooper Cycle 24 the minimum core flow SLMCPR calculation performed at 75% core flow at rated core power was limiting as compared to the rated core flow at rated core power condition. For convenience, Figures 111.5-1 and 111.5-2 from NEDC 32601P-A have been provided in the "Figure References" section in order to show this case's relative relationship to the data on these figures. For this case the MIP [[]]; therefore, this demonstrates that the MIP criterion for determining what constitutes a reasonably bounding limiting rod pattern is still valid for this condition.

2.7. Limiting

Control Rod Patterns The limiting control rod patterns used to calculate the SLMCPR reasonably assures that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core would not be expected to experience boiling transition during D~iscutssion Page 7 of 23 GNF Attachment normal operation or anticipated operational occurrences during the operation of Cooper Cycle 24.2.8. Core Monitoring System For Cooper Cycle 24, the GARDEL system will be used as the core monitoring system.The utility has requested GNF to perform the SLMCPR calculation applying the GETA.B power distribution methodology and uncertainties. Due to the third party proprietary information, the utility has provided in a separate attachment the basis that the GETAB power distribution methodology and uncertainties are applicable for the GARDEL core monitoring system.2.9. Power/Flow Map The utility had provided the current and previous cycle power/flow map in a separate attachment. 2.10. Core Loading Diagram Figures I and 2 provide the core loading diagram for the current and previous cycle respectively, which are the Reference Loading Pattern as defined by NEDE-2401 1-P-A.2.11. Figure References Figure 3 is Figure 4.1 from NEDC-32601-P-A. Figure 4 is Figure 111.5-1 from NEDC-32601P-A. Figure 5 is Figure 111.5-2 from NEDC-32601P-A. 2.12. Additional SLMCPR Licensing Conditions For Cooper Cycle 24, no additional SLMCPR licensing conditions are included in the analysis.2.13. Summary Although the calculated Monte Carlo SLO SLMCPR value was 1.10, the utility desires to maintain the current Technical Specification SLMCPR delta between TLO and SLO of 0.02.Therefore, the requested changes to the Technical Specification SLMCPR values are 1.09 for Two Loop Operation and 1 .11 for Single Loop Operation for Cooper Cycle 24.Discutsion Page 8 of 23 rA GNF Attachment

3.0 References

1. Letter, Glen A. Watford (GNF-A) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk with attention to R. Pulsifer (NRC), "Confirmation of IOxI0 Fuel Design Applicability to Improved SLMCPR, Power Distribution and R-Factor Methodologies", FLN-2001-016, September 24, 2001.2. Letter, Glen A. Watford (GNF-A) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk with attention to J. Donoghue (NRC), "Confirmation of the Applicability of the GEXLI4 Correlation and Associated R-Factor Methodology for Calculating SLMCPR Values in Cores Containing GE14 Fuel", FLN-2001-017, October 1, 2001.3. Letter, Glen A. Watford (GNF-A) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk with attention to J. Donoghue (NRC), "Final Presentation Material for GEXL Presentation

-February 11, 2002", FLN-2002-004, February 12, 2002.4. Letter, John F. Schardt (GNF-A) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk with attention to Mel B. Fields (NRC), "Shadow Corrosion Effects on SLMCPR Channel Bow Uncertainty", FLN-2004-030, November 10, 2004.5. Letter, Jason S. Post (GENE) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk with attention to Chief, Information Management Branch, et al., (NRC), "Part 21 Final Report: Non-Conservative SLMCPR", MFN 04-108, September 29, 2004.6. Letter, Glen A. Watford (GNF-A) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk with attention to Alan Wang (NRC), "NRC Technology Update -Proprietray Slides- July 31 -August 1, 2002", FLN-2002-015, October 31, 2002.7. Letter, Jens G. Munthe Andersen (GNF-A) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk with attention to Alan Wang (NRC), "GENL Correlation for 1OX 10 Fuel", FLN-2003-005, May 31, 2003.]?ý-fer-eice~s Page 9 of 23 GNF Attachment 52 50 HEql E] E]L 48 El! E__lC El El El El [ ID El__l El Q ] El ElElEl 46 IEJJI'MI LJP 1LJ! WI-J EIJIE ý f 446E lE lE lE lE E 'l l El Eli EDElElE-EE 42 O'I'] W-O I'Pl WILelL L 'ýI I- m0-L 40 E[] ElElE E3_D Elt El [] El El El El E__t rqEl El El El El El ElElE 38 0l E9- i-P WDLVE E E -i% ON-5-1 E L 36 34 322 30'8 26 f"i-fiIf if-ii" EWEN ME 24~I' 0 Elp E]IEE O 124 D M M ME.)LGI EMr- El..Dr- M] M] [] El[ ]20 IE 1IF Ed]l IffE] El--EFIIE] FI]E]_LF E ] E] NIjF ][] d] E]1 1 181 7 1 1 2 25 "1 27 -29 3 1 333[3- 9 1 4 4-7i95 14 F-iI FI--F OO W l-lE IE E*-i 'il 10 [o 00E- N 0EPI PM-l OEM HIM 4 upm rIFIFl 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 Fuel Type A GE 14-Pl()HNAB385-1 4GZ- I 0()(f-148-16-3881 (Cvclc 20) E=GE14-PIODNAB398-16GZ-I00T-150-16-2569 (Cycle 22)13=GE 14-P IO1-NAB385-14GZ- l0OT- 148-T6-3881 (Cycle 20) =GEL 14-PIODNAB395-14GZ-10Th-150-16-2800 (Cycle 23)C=GE 14-PI01-I1NAB379-17GZ-I OOT- I 50-T6-2476 (Cycle 21) G=GE 14-P I ODNAB393-17 7GZ- 1001-150-T6-2801 (Cycle 23)ID=GI 14-1110DNAI33,93-176Z-100f-1 50-T6-2611 (Cycle 22) H-1=E1l4-PI0DNAB385-13GZ-100T-150-T6-2901 (Cycle 24)I=GE 14-PIODNAB386-14GZ-lOOT- I 50-T6-2902 (Cycle 24)IFigure 1. Current Cycle Core Loading DiagramPg Page I0o 23 GNF Attachment 52 m o o 50 Ljý-W 'Hip jE Ei AID-- 1 El El PF1 IEIE+ El 48 FL] EC ]- [CE E] r q E[] D] [EE] [EE [DE El Ej [EE E3 El E1 El 46 ý J 'IP MH INEIH O'ý1 E1 420 H FM.L F- ur.H-- FEE: WIN UM i MH 640 E--]- M [13 E] ElI E3 E1 [E] E1 [E] Ef] [E] [E] E] [E] [E] E] [E] L] FL] E] 38 ' WM- W'E] '-PI WEII' H1 [PE-I W" E ] WE ] MWE ] HE E 36 [Dir [E]E L E E D[]E:1E ID]E]E lE D I E lElrIElIE 24~ ~ ~ J-11" 2 I' WO L' H 'E'I-- I' [L"HI P"E I" L"M1" E I L N! PO 2- HM 23 PE 10 ] ý' W WON 32o ElF1 El El1F E] E] El [E] [-G9 El E IIIII T [E [DE D El E-- E-- I--- IE El E- I DI E-l-30 M I El WT r h M] r NqE] MEWE] M n-] 0] 28 ]fl LE]240 120 12 MIF! D E 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 Fuel Type A-GEI4-PI 0HNAB83 85-14GZ- I OOT- 148-T6-3881 (Cycle 20) E=GE 14-PI ODNAB393-17GZ-I O(T- 150-T6-261 I (Cycle 22)B=GE14-PI OHNAB385-14GZ-I OT- 148-T6-3881 (Cycle 20) F-=G1-14-P] ODNAB398-16GZ-I (OT- 1 50-T6-2569 (Cycle 22)C=GE14-PI OHNAB385-14GZ-100T- 148-T6-3881 (Cycle 20) G=GE 14-PI ODNAB395-14GZ-1001T-] 50-T6-28(00 (Cycle 23)D-GEl 4-PI OHNAB379-17GZ-10(1T- 150-T6-2476 (Cycle 21) H-GE 14-PIODNAB393-1 7GZ- I O0T-I 50-T6-2801 (Cycle 23)Figure 2. Previous Cycle Core Loading l)iagramP Page 11I of-.} GNF Attachment 1]Figure 3. Figure 4.] from NELDC-32601-P-A Page 12 of 23 1 GNF Attachment 1]Figure 4. Figure 111.5-]fironi NEDC-326011P-A Page 13 ) of 23) GNF Attachment 1[1].Figure 5, figure lll.5-2 fron NEL)C-32601P-A Page 14 of 23 GNF Attachment Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Rated Current Cycle Current Cycle Rated Description Minimum Core Flow Core Flow Limiting Minimum Core Flow Core Flow Limiting Limiting Case Case Limiting Case Case Number of Bundles in the 548 548 548 548 Core Limiting Cycle Exposure Point (i.e. EOC EOC EOC EOC BOC/MOC/EOC) Cycle Exposure at Limiting Point 11000 11400 8500 8500 (MWd/STU)% Rated Core Flow 75 100 75 100 Reload Fuel Type GE14 GE14 GEN4 GEN4 Latest Reload Batch 30 30 22 Fraction, %Latest Reload Average Batch Weight % 3.94 3.94 3.85 3.85 Enrichment Core Fuel Fraction: 100 100 100 100 GE14 %Core Average Weight % 3 3.89 Enrichment 3.89 3.89 3.89 Table I. Descriplion of Core Page 15 of 23 GNF Attachment Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Rated Current Cycle Current Cycle Rated Description Minimum Core Flow Core Flow Limiting Minimum Core Flow Core Flow Limiting Limiting Case Case Limiting Case Case Non-power Distribution NEDC-32601-P-A NEDC-32601-P-A NEDC-32601-P-A NEDC-32601-P-A Uncertainty Power Distribution GETAB GETAB GETAB GETAB Methodology Power Distribution GETAB GETAB GETAB GETAB Uncertainty Core Monitoring System GARDEL GARDEL GARDEL GARDEL Table 2. SLMCPR Calculation MethodologiesP Page 16 of 23 GNF Attachment Page 17 of 23 GNF Attachment Page 18 of 23 GNF Attachment Nominal (NRC Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Current Cycle Current Cycle Approved) Value Minimum Core Rated Core Flow Minimum Core Rated Core Flow++/- (%) Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case GETAB Feedwater Flow 1.76 N/A N/A N/A N/A Measurement Feedwater Temperature 0.76 N/A N/A N/A N/A M easurement Reactor Pressure 0.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A Measurement Core Inlet Temperature 0.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A Measurement Total Core Flow 6.0 SLO/2.5 TLO N/A N/A N/A N/A Measurement Channel Flow Area 3.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Variation Friction Factor 10.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Multiplier Channel Friction FactorMutipi 5.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Factor Multiplier NEDC-32601-P-A Feedwater Flow 1] R i H 11 Measurement Feedwater Temperature [[ ]] Er .11 Er I1 []Measurement Table 4. Non-Power Disribution Uncertai,,tieP 1 Page 19 of 23 GNF Attachment Nominal (NRC Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Current Cycle Current Cycle Approved) Value Minimum Core Rated Core Flow Minimum Core Rated Core Flow a o (%) Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Reactor Pressure Measurement ]] E[ 1 [[ II Er Eli i1 Core Inlet Temperature 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Measurement Total Core Flow 6.0 SLO/2.5 TLO 6.0 SLO/3.33 TLO 6.0 SLO/2.5 TLO 6.0 SLO/3.33 TLO 6.0 SLO/2.5 TLO Measurement Channel Flow Area l Variation Friction Factor E Multiplier Channel Friction FactorMutipi 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Factor MultiplierI Table 4. Non-Power Distribution Uncertainties Page 20 of 23 GNF Attachment Nominal (NRC Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Current Cycle Current Cycle Description Approved) Value Minimum Core Rated Core Flow Minimum Core Rated Core Flow+/- (%) Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case GETAB GEXL R-Factor 1.5 [[ [1 ]] [[ ]]Random Effective 2.85 SLO/1.2 TLO 2.85 SLO/ 1.6 TLO 2.85 SLO/1.2 TLO 2.85 SLO/1.6 TLO 2.85 SLO/1.2 TLO TIIP Reading Systematic Effective 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 TIP Reading NEDC-32694-P-A, 3DMONICORE GEXL R-Factor N/A N/A N/A N/A Random Effective 2.85 SLO/1.2 TLO N/A N/A N/A N/A TIP Reading TIP Integral N/A N/A N/A N/A Four Bundle Power Distribution Surrounding TIP [ ] N/A N/A N/A N/A Location Contribution to Bundle Power Uncertainty Due to [[ N/A N/A N/A N/A LPRM Update Contribution to Bundle Power Due to [ N/A N/A N/A N/A Failed TIP Table 5. Power Distribittion Lhnceriainlies Page 2' 1 of 23 GNF Attachment Nominal (NRC Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Current Cycle Current Cycle Description Approved) Value Minimum Core Rated Core Flow Minimum Core Rated Core Flow+ (%) Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Contribution to Bundle Power Due to N/A N/A N/A N/A Failed LPRM Total Uncertainty in Calculated Bundle N/A N/A N/A N/A Power Uncertainty of TIP Signal Nodal N/A N/A N/A N/A Uncertainty Table 5. Power Disiribution (hiceriPtinfies Pa-e of 23 GNF Attachment 1]Table 6. Critical Power Uncer/ainlies Page 23 of 23 NLS2007032 Enclosure 3 Page 1 of 4 ENCLOSURE 3 10 CFR 2.390 Affidavit from Global Nuclear Fuels -Americas Cooper Nuclear Station NRC Docket 50-298, License DPR-46/ Affidavit Affidavit I, Jens G. M. Andersen, state as follows: (1) 1 am Consulting Engineer, Thermal Hydraulic Methods, Global Nuclear Fuel -Americas, L.L.C. ("GNF-A") 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 the attachment, "GNF Additional Information Regarding the Requested Changes to Technical Specifications SLMCPR Cooper Cycle 24," May 4, 2006. GNF proprietary information is indicated by enclosing it in double brackets. In each case, the superscript notation (31 refers to Paragraph (3) of this affidavit, which provides the basis for the proprietary determination. (3) In making this application for withholding of proprietary information of which it is the owner or licensee, GNF-A 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(a)(4) and 2.390(a)(4) 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"confidential commercial information," and some portions also qualify under the narrower definition of "trade secret," within the meanings assigned to those terms for purposes of FOIA Exemption 4 in, respectively, Critical Mass Energy Proiect v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 975F2d871 (DC Cir. 1992), and Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704F2d1280 (DC Cir. 1983).(4) Some examples of categories of information which fit into the definition of proprietary information are: a. Information that discloses a process, method, or.apparatus, including supporting data and analyses, where prevention of its use by GNF-A's competitors without license from GNF-A 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, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product;c. Information which reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of GNF-A, its customers, or its suppliers;

d. Information which reveals aspects of past, present, or future GNF-A customer-funded development plans and programs, of potential commercial value to GNF-A;e. Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

Affidavit The information sought to be withheld is considered to be proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs (4)a. and (4)b., above.(5) To address the 10 CFR 2.390 (b) (4), the information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in confidence. The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by GNF-A, and is in fact so held. Its initial designation as proprietary information, and the subsequent steps taken to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, are as set forth in (6) and (7) following. The information sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by GNF-A, 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. (6) Initial approval of proprietary treatment of a document is made by the manager of the originating component, the person most likely to be acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge, or subject to the terms under which it was licensed to GNF-A. Access to such documents within GNF-A is limited on a "need to know" basis.(7) The procedure for approval of external release of such a document typically requires review by the staff manager, project 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 of the accuracy of the proprietary designation. Disclosures outside GNF-A are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential customers, and their agents, suppliers, and licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary agreements. (8) The information identified in paragraph (2) is classified as proprietary because it contains details of GNF-A's fuel design and licensing methodology. The development of the methods used in these analyses, along with the testing, development and approval of the supporting methodology was achieved at a significant cost, on the order of several million dollars, to GNF-A or its licensor.(9) Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to GNF-A's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities. The fuel design and licensing methodology is part of GNF-A's comprehensive BWR safety and technology base, and its commercial value extends beyond the original development cost.The 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 GNF-A or its licensor. Affidavit The precise value of the expertise to devise an evaluation process and apply the correct analytical methodology is difficult to quantify, but it clearly is substantial. GNF-A's competitive advantage will be lost if its competitors are able to use the results of the GNF-A 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. The value of this information to GNF-A would be lost if the information were disclosed to the public. Making such information available to competitors without their having been required to undertake a similar expenditure of resources would unfairly provide competitors with a windfall, and deprive GNF-A of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage to seek an adequate return on its large investment in developing and obtaining these very valuable analytical tools.I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.Executed at Wilmington, North Carolina, this 4th day of May 2006.Jens G. M. Andersen Global Nuclear Fuel -Americas, LLC}}