ML082050412
| ML082050412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/2008 |
| From: | Langley D Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TVA-BFN-TS-446 | |
| Download: ML082050412 (35) | |
Text
Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 2000, Decatur, Alabama 35609-2000 July 18, 2008 TVA-BFN-TS-446 10 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Stop: OWFN P1-35 Washington, D.C.
20555-0001 Gentlemen:
In the Matter of
)
Docket No.
50-259 Tennessee Valley Authority BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)
UNIT 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS)
CHANGE TS-446 SAFETY LIMIT MINIMUM CRITICAL POWER RATIO (SLMCPR)
CYCLE 8 OPERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is submitting a request for a TS change (TS-446) to license DPR-33 for BFN Unit 1. The proposed change reduces the numeric values of SLMCPR in TS Section 2.1.1.2 for single and two reactor recirculation loop operation to incorporate the results of the Unit 1 Cycle 8 SLMCPR analysis.
The SLMCPR analysis report was prepared by Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) for TVA in support of this proposed TS change.
A proprietary version of the GNF SLMCPR analysis report is provided in Enclosure 3.
Some of the information in is considered proprietary and GNF requests that this proprietary information be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 9.17(a) (4) and 10 CFR 2.390(a) (4).
A GNF affidavit supporting this request is included in Enclosure 3. provides a non-proprietary version of the same report.
The SLMCPR analysis report is provided in a GNF developed template format.
TVA understands that this template format is intended to provide NRC with sufficient information on GNF-based SLMCPR TS changes to minimize the need for supplemental submittals.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 July 18, 2008 On June 28,
- 2004, TVA submitted proposed TS change TS-431 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041840109) to allow operation of Unit 1 at Extended Power Uprate (EPU) conditions.
Accordingly, the attached Unit 1 Cycle 8 SLMCPR analysis was performed based on EPU conditions in anticipation of NRC approval of TS-431 for Unit 1 Cycle 8 operation.
Therefore, TVA is asking that this TS change be approved concurrent with TS-431 and that the implementation of the revised TS be made within 60 days of NRC approval.
BFN Unit 1 Cycle 8 operation will commence in late November 2008 following a scheduled refuel outage.
TVA has determined that there are no significant hazards considerations associated with the proposed change and that the TS change qualifies for a categorical exclusion from environmental review pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c) (9).
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b) (1),
TVA is sending a copy of this letter and enclosures to the Alabama State Department of Public Health.
No new regulatory commitments are made in this submittal.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (256)729-2636.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is_
true and correct.
Ex uted on this 18th day of July, 2008.
Sincere y, u e/
D.
T.
angley Manager of Licensing and Industry Affairs
Enclosures:
- 1. TVA Evaluation of the Proposed Change
- 2.
Proposed Technical Specifications Changes (mark-up)
- 3.
Affidavit and Proprietary Version of GNF Report
- 4. Non-Proprietary version of GNF Report
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 July 18, 2008 cc (w. Enclosures):
State Health Officer Alabama State Department of Public Health RSA Tower - Administration Suite 1552 P.O. Box 303017 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-3017 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 10833 Shaw Road
- Athens, AL 35611-6970 Mr.
Eugene F. Guthrie, Branch Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931 Eva Brown, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (MS 08G9)
One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2739 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-446 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR)
Cycle 8 Operation TVA Evaluation of the Proposed Change
1.0 DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is submitting a request for a TS change (TS-446) to Operating License DPR-33 for BFN Unit 1. The proposed change revises the numeric values of SLMCPR in TS Section 2.1.1.2 for single and two reactor recirculation loop operation to incorporate the results of the Unit 1 Cycle 8 SLMCPR analysis.
Approval of TS-446 is needed for Cycle 8 operation, which is scheduled to begin in November 2008.
2.0 PROPOSED CHANGE
The proposed TS change revises the SLMCPR value in Unit 1 TS 2.1.1.2 from 1.11 to 1.09 for single recirculation loop operation and from 1.09 to 1.07 for two recirculation loop operation.
A marked-up TS page is provided in Enclosure 2, which shows the TS revision.
3.0 BACKGROUND
Safety Limits (SLs) are limits upon important process variables that are found to be necessary to reasonably protect the integrity of certain physical barriers that guard against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity.
One such SL included in BFN TS is the SLMCPR value in TS 2.1.1.2.
The SLMCPR limit is established such that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core would not be expected to experience the onset of transition boiling as a result of normal operation and transients, which in turn ensures fuel cladding damage does not occur.
A general discussion of the SLMCPR parameter is maintained in Section 3.7.7.1.1, Fuel Cladding Integrity Safety Limit, of the BFN Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
El-I
The SLMCPR limit is established such that fuel design limits are not exceeded during steady state operation, normal operational transients, and abnormal operational transients.
As such, fuel damage is calculated not to occur if the limit is not violated.
However, because fuel damage is not directly observable, a
stepback approach is used to establish corresponding MCPR Operating Limits.
In simple terms, the MCPR Operating Limits are established by summing the cycle-specific core reload transient analyses adders and 'the calculated SLMCPR values.
The MCPR Operating Limits are required to be established and documented in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) for each reload cycle by TS 5.6.5, COLR.
TS 3.2.2, MCPR, specifies the Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements for monitoring MCPR against the MCPR Operating Limits documented in the COLR.
The absolute value of SLMCPR tends to vary cycle-to-cycle, typically due to the introduction of improved fuel bundle types, changes in fuel vendors, and changes in core loading pattern.
Following the determination of the cycle-specific SLMCPR values, the MCPR Operating Limits are derived.
The MCPR Operating Limits are maintained in the COLR in accordance with TS 5.6.5.a(3).
- However, the cycle-specific SLMCPR numeric values are listed in TS 2.1.1.2 and must be revised using the license amendment process.
The cycle-specific calculations for the Unit 1 Cycle 8 core design have been recently completed and a change to the TS 2.1.1.2 SLMCPR values for single and two recirculation loop operation is warranted.
Therefore, this proposed TS change is requesting that the SLMCPR numeric values in TS 2.1.1.2 be revised to reflect the results of the Cycle 8 SLMCPR analysis.
Approval of TS-446 is being requested for BFN Unit 1 Cycle 8 operation, which is scheduled to begin in late November 2008.
4.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
The SLMCPR values have been determined by Global Nuclear Fuel (GNF) for TVA for Unit 1 Cycle 8 operation using plant-and cycle-specific fuel and core parameters.
A proprietary version of the SLMCPR analysis letter report prepared by GNF in support of this proposed TS change is provided in Enclosure 3.
Enclosure 4 provides a non-proprietary version of the same report.
The SLMCPR evaluation was based on the cycle-specific procedures and analytical methodologies described in "General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel," NEDE-24011-P-A-16 (GESTAR-II),
(Reference 1) and in the US Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-16-US, October 2007 (Reference 1), which include E1-2
Amendment 25.
Amendment 25 was approved by the NRC in a
March 11, 1999, Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and provides acceptance for referencing the Licensing Topical Reports (LTRs)
NEDC-32601P-A, "Methodology and Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR Evaluations" (Reference 2) and NEDC-32694P-A, "Power Distribution Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR Evaluation" (Reference 3).
Also used was NEDE-32505P-A, Revision 1, "R-Factor Calculation Method for GE-II, GE-12, and GE-13 Fuel" (Reference 4).
These LTR methodologies were previously used to justify the SLMCPR TS values for the current Unit 1 operating cycle (Cycle 7) as approved by NRC in the SER dated February 6, 2007 (ML0705402420) for TS change 455.
The Unit 1 Cycle 8 core is designed for Extended Power Uprate operation.
The core design uses 328 fresh GEl4 fuel assemblies, 108 irradiated GEl3 fuel assemblies, and 328 irradiated GEl4 fuel assemblies.
The Unit 1 Cycle 8 core loading pattern is shown in Figure 1 of Enclosures 3 and 4.
5.0 REGULATORY SAFETY ANALYSIS The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is submitting a Technical Specifications (TS) change request to Operating License DPR-33 for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1. The proposed change revises the Reactor Core Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) in TS Section 2.1.1.2 from 1.09 to 1.07 for two reactor recirculation loop operation and from 1.11 to 1.09 for single loop operation.
5.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration TVA has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed TS change by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, "Issuance of Amendment,",
as discussed below:
- 1.
Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response
No The proposed amendment establishes a revised SLMCPR value for single and two recirculation loop operation.
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident.
The proposed SLMCPR values preserve the existing margin to transition boiling and the probability of fuel damage is not increased.
Since the change does not require any physical plant modifications or physically affect any plant El-3
domponents, no individual precursors of an accident are affected and the probability of an evaluated accident is not increased by revising the SLMCPR values.
The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those consequences.
The revised SLMCPR values have been determined using NRC-approved methods and procedures.
The basis of the MCPR Safety Limit is to ensure no mechanistic fuel damage is calculated to occur if the limit is not violated.
These calculations do not change the method of operating the plant and have no effect on the consequences of an evaluated accident. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed Technical Specification change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response
No The proposed license amendment involves a revision of the SLMCPR value for single and two recirculation loop operation based on the results of an analysis of the Unit 1 Cycle 8 core.
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident would require the creation of one or more new precursors of that accident. New accident precursors may be created by modifications of the plant configuration, including changes in the allowable methods of operating the facility. This proposed license amendment does not involve any modifications of the plant configuration or changes in the allowable methods of operation.
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
- 3.
Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response
No The margin of safety as defined in the TS bases will remain the same.
The new SLMCPR values were calculated using referenced fuel vendor methods and procedures, which are in accordance with the fuel design and licensing criteria.
The SLMCPR remains high enough to ensure that greater than 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core are expected to avoid transition boiling if the limit is not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding integrity.
Therefore, El1-4
the proposed TS change does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above, TVA concludes that the proposed TS change presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c),
and, accordingly, a finding of "no significant hazards consideration" is justified.
5.2 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria The SLMCPR values included in this TS submittal have been determined in accordance with the referenced NRC-approved fuel vendor methodologies.
Accordingly, applicable regulatory requirements and criteria are met.
In conclusion, based on the considerations discussed above, (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the TS changes will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
A review has determined that the proposed TS changes would change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR 20, or would change an inspection or surveillance requirement.
However, the proposed TS changes do not involve (i) a significant hazards consideration, (ii) a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, or (iii) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the proposed TS change meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the proposed TS change.
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR-II),
NEDE-24011-P-A-16, and the US Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-16-US, October 2007.
- 2.
NEDC-32601P-A, Methodology and Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR Evaluations, August 1999.
- 3. NEDC-32694P-A, Power Distribution Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR Evaluation, August 1999.
El-5
- 4.
NEDE-32505P-A, Revision 1, R-Factor Calculation Method for GE-lI, GE-12, and GE-13 Fuel, July 1999.
EI-6 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS)
Change TS-446 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR)
Cycle 8 Operation Proposed Technical Specification Changes (mark-up)
SLs 2.0 2.0 SAFETY LIMITS (SLs) 2.1 SLs 2.1.1 Reactor Core SLs 2.1.1.1 With the reactor steam dome pressure < 785 psig or core-flow
< 10% rated core flow:
THERMAL POWER shall be < 25% RTP.
2.1.1.2 With the reactor steam dome pressure Ž 785 psig and core flow
> 10% rated core flow:
MCPR shall be _!@Oor two recirculation loop operation or _
for single loop operation.
2.1.1.3 Reactor vessel water level shall be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel.
2.1.2 Reactor Coolant System Pressure SL Reactor steam dome pressure shall be < 1325 psig.
2.2 SL Violations With any SL violation, the following actions shall be completed within 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />s:
2.2.1 Restore compliance with all SLs; and 2.2.2 Insert all insertable control rods.
BFN-UNIT 1 2.0-1 Amendment No. 236*-267 February 06, 2007 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-446 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR)
Cycle 8 Operation Non-Proprietary Version of GNF Report
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment 5/21/2008 GNF S-0000-0076-0998 GNF Additional Information Regarding the Requested Changes to the Technical Specification SLMCPR Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8 Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8 Page I of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Proprietary Information Notice This document is the GNF non-proprietary version of the GNF proprietary report. From the GNF proprietary version, the information denoted as GNF proprietary (enclosed in double brackets) was deleted to generate this version.
Proprietary Information Notice Page 2 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table of Contents 1.0 M ETH O DO LO G Y.........................................................................................................................................
4 2.0 DISCU SSIO N..................................................................................................................................................
4 2.1.
M AJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO SLM CPR CHANGE.........................................................................................
4 2.2.
D EVIATIONS IN NR C-A PPROVED UNCERTAINTIES..................................................................................... 5 2.2.1.
R-Factor................................................................................................................................................
5 2.2.2.
Core Flow Rate and Random Effective TIP Reading............................................................................
5 2.3.
D EPARTURE FROM NR C-APPROVED M ETHODOLOGY................................................................................
6 2.4.
FUEL AXIAL POW ER SHAPE PENALTY.......................................................................................................
6 2.5.
M ETHODOLOGY RESTRICTIONS............................................................................................................... 7 2.6.
M INIMUM CORE FLOW CONDITION......................................................................................................... 7 2.7.
LIMITING CONTROL ROD PATTERNS...........................................................................
7 2.8.
CORE M ONITORING SYSTEM..........................................................................................................................
7 2.9.
POW ER/FLOW M AP........................................................................................................................................
7 2.10.
CORE LOADING D IAGRAM.........................................................................................................................
7 2.11.
FIGURE REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................
8 2.12.
A DDITIONAL SLM CPR LICENSING CONDITIONS....................................................................................
8 2.13.
SUMMARY
8 3.0 REFER ENC ES................................................................................................................................................
9 List of Figures FIGURE 1. CURRENT CYCLE CORE LOADING D IAGRAM........................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 2. PREVIOUS CYCLE CORE LOADING D IAGRAM.............................................................................................
11 FIGURE 3. FIGURE 4.1 FROM NEDC-32601 -P-A..........................
12 FIGURE 4. FIGURE 111.5-1 FROM NED C-32601P-A................................................................................................
13 FIGURE 5. FIGURE 111.5-2 FROM N ED C-32601P-A................................................................................................
14 List of Tables TABLE 1. D ESCRIPTION OF CORE................................................................................................................................
15 TABLE 2. SLMCPR CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES......................................................
16 TABLE 3. M ONTE CARLO CALCULATED SLM CPR vs. ESTIM ATE.......................................................................... 17 TABLE 4. N ON-POW ER D ISTRIBUTION U NCERTAINTIES........................................................................................... 19 TABLE 5. POW ER D ISTRIBUTION U NCERTAINTIES......................................................................................................
21 TABLE 6. CRITICAL POW ER UNCERTAINTIES..............................................................................................................
23 Table of Contents Page 3 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment 1.0 Methodology GNF performed the Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) calculation in accordance to NEDE-2401 1-P-A "General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel" (Revision 16) 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 GE 11, GE 12 and GE 13 Fuel" (Revision 1, July 1999).
- NEDO-10958-A "General Electric BWR Thermal Analysis Basis (GETAB): Data, Correlation and Design Application" (January 1977).
Table 2 identifies the actual methodologies used for the previous Cycle 7 and the current Cycle 8 SLMCPR calculations.
2.0 Discussion In this discussion, the TLO nomenclature is used for two recirculation loops in operation, and the SLO nomenclature is used for one recirculation loop in operation.
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 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. In addition, Table 3 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 Methodology Page 4 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment 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 ((
{31)) and the inherent variation in the Monte Carlo results ((
{31)), the change in the Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8 calculated Monte Carlo TLO SLMCPR using rated core power and rated core flow conditions is consistent with the corresponding estimated TLO SLMCPR value.
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 ((
{3))) 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 channel bow uncertainty component of the approved R-Factor uncertainty. The step "Y RPEAK" in Figure 4.1 from NEDC-32601P-A, which has been provided for convenience in Figure 3 of this attachment, is affected by this deviation. Reference 4 technically justifies that a GEXL R-Factor uncertainty of ((
131)) accounts for a channel bow uncertainty of up to ((
f3))).
Currently, Browns Ferry Unit 1 has not experienced any control blade shadow corrosion-induced channel bow and is not expected to experience any in Cycle 8 to the extent that would invalidate the approved R-Factor uncertainty.
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 analyses at the rated core power and minimum licensed core flow point in addition to analyses 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.
The available flow range at rated power, 99% to 100% rated core flow, does not warrant analysis at the minimum core flow point.
Discussion Page 5 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment 2.3. Departure from NRC-Approved Methodology No departures from NRC-approved methodologies were used in the Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8 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, 7 and 8. The following table identifies, by marking with an "X", this potential for each GNF product line currently being offered:
((
4
.4-4 Axial bundle power shapes corresponding to the limiting SLMCPR control blade patterns are determined using the PANACEA 3D core simulator. These axial power shapes are classified in accordance to the following table:
((
{3)))
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 1-P-A along with values actually used.
Discussion Page 6 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment 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 Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8 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-24011-P-A (March 11, 1999) are addressed in References 1, 2, and 3.
No new GNF fuel designs are being introduced in Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8; 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 The available flow range at rated power, 99% to 100% rated core flow, does not warrant analysis at the minimum core flow point.
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 normal operation or anticipated operational occurrences during the operation of Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8.
2.8. Core Monitoring System For Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8, the 3DMonicore system will be used as the core monitoring system.
2.9. Power/Flow Map The utility has provided the current and previous cycle power/flow map in a separate attachment.
2.10. Core Loading Diagram Figures 1 and 2 provide the core loading diagram for the current and previous cycle respectively, which are the Reference Loading Pattern as defined by NEDE-240 11-P-A. Table 1 provides a description of the core.
Discussion Page 7 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment 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 Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8, the additional SLMCPR licensing condition that the SLMCPR shall be established by adding 0.02 to the cycle-specific SLMCPR value calculated using the NRC-approved methodologies documented in NEDE-2401 1-P-A has been applied (see Table 3).
2.13. Summary The requested changes to the Technical Specification SLMCPR values are 1.07 for TLO and 1.09 for SLO for Browns Ferry Unit 1 Cycle 8.
Discussion Page 8 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I 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 lOx 10 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 GEXL14 Correlation and Associated R-Factor Methodology for Calculating SLMCPR Values in Cores Containing GEl4 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 Joseph E. 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 -
Proprietary 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), "GEXL Correlation for 1OX1O Fuel", FLN-2003-005, May 31, 2003.
- 8. Letter, Andrew A. Lingenfelter (GNF-A) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk with cc to MC Honcharik (NRC), "Removal of Penalty Being Applied to GE 14 Critical Power Correlation for Outlet Peaked Axial Power Shapes",
FLN-2007-031, September 18,2007.
References Page 9 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Figure 1. Current Cycle Core Loading Diagram 80 80 rn 5mwim ffTMMh 11P91Bnff M M M
irn 5+/-L01 E+iAM -r Cd164i W
06 ii U.I.M....9091 rn
)30 Or D
_LOffmEIJ Emu 42- 0_L a] (B _L
@]
E]- Q ]
a
[ *L ][ []QT K0 EGA Jn**LrE*
I1 T
I m*~li (0
I I I 111111111l t3-3 0,
D N 6L 0,
- L GE1-PD 4-7lT1T 2
GE 14-Pg0D NTB 15-N IG-lOOT-IO-TB-2*72 M 52 GE 14-P100 NTB 1
-NI5G-lOOT-1 G6-"I
-3)79 F
3 GE 14-PlO0D NAB4IO-1I6GZ-lOOT-160- TB-2190 N '8 GE 14-PlOD NAB8451-I6GZ-lOOT-150- T6-Th2r 72 3EI4-P10DNAS*36SE-I6GZ-IOOT-160-TB'-28965 0 72 GEI4-PIODNAB4I8-I6GZ-IOOT-160-'I'-ThO0 24 GE 14-P 100 NAEIO2-IOGZ-lOOT-150-T"- 28 Figure 1. Current Cycle Core Loading Diagram Page 10 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Figure 2. Previous Cycle Core Loading Diagram 60 EA] E] E__I_] [__D [E]_ [E] [Et] E__[D EA]_E) 58 D0E IFE[
EDH[D 56 AB K0 KID EID ED O ME0D K[__
[
] [KE]
E]
-4 A C K K DDE EIII IEI KL 54 El EIFEI SFEI SEI ElAEl E-ITE1ER 52[__[E LE]IE r
[_DE (DE][E] [EE]*
[DE]* ED]
[EE
] QE] M__(o E*LD ] [0 ] [] 011]
38 A
D C
l Q00 D
REMO ENDIE]
0 JEO 0 J 0 [E GO
[I J
0 ME F 48E]
L
[ L]
[ K]
[IIDE
[-IDE
[E] [E][][))[E]_*
[__
D] ] E__
t S
[ EE] E.]
E]__DrD [DI] E][
]
EL]2 EI_
346 B
0C EEPI B1
[PEI SOU E-IFE]N PIH J-12 GOD B
BODE 0
34E0 B IE C
l F
2E D
[EE 00]
ED JOL EE0 100G GODl EJ DEE OFE1 4 R MT-E]E ElIIFI M [PEI 10 IE
[PII EIEI
'10E FEN0FE]ME] E]IE] AE --
l I
40 4L[ ))
E [Q]
r Q~_£
_I[D E][JDE] []IDo E___] DE]
E] L[] E]LE] E]__D]
[EE]E][E] rffl_2 EE]
S E] ELE]
EEl(IE] El's EV I
El El EIPIS II Ill~ ]F 26_
J*E H G)O M OE D E D [DE
] [I CE]
18 EI F
E[I EDO E] E][El EL E] El [E]
I JFl 32
[B] E] [OL[E] Q_* r~J_
[E]
E] E
_1E D
E]__OLE [E_]
L[E] E] LE]_
-_DEl
__DE]_* E__l_ ElD ME] [
1 0 C
J E E
L KFN 0L L
E l Kla 30a [ PC] BE] E]'IIE]*-* I'IE]1 r--DEMII-1 ET-I-DFlE]--D E]IE]D SIS_[DEIE]
S'-
][EIE]
-1110
[TJDITI]EIE]
F-LED NIE]
FI-I-*D E]IE]*--D*][
28 E10 00 EI_
]LE_]£ II* EE I£ _2 _I*
] [E] EME_]
E10_21
[]E tlS]QlQ[E]_IE] [ELED [-I~_DE
[0__ [EJ] [E]E 26 EIEIETIEI 10EE F'MI I
IE 24
[EE] [F] [DE]£F
[EE]_I[ME]_ED]IF2]_[_D [E_]2 Q
_tF G]
[]IIIDF__DI D
CIjE
]I*IE__F ][
22 r__LE fII r~l '
1]
1 ~F 3 5 7N 911311792 2322793 333537394 143457491 53555759 A
G ElS 9DTl I-7 EG l
0El
[E]O 4
3 56E]
[LE3 B0 [
El[EI IE5 E] E]IE] E4]PE]
E]DNE]ZE]-
[- I ]
3 D FIL 3 C ~
~
~
~
L GEl El9D~
56NO-OO-46-T6-2887 56 7
E G8 4-PII_1 EO]DE0 AFB_-D FID il [P
-l50-T-D 9i6i rELD E]_IEn ENIDu] [7 E]
F GE]l 4-Pi ODNB4O-D E]_
GZ-
- _10 ME l
[-
K-_9 32] []
ILE D~
I
[E[]E]E E FI 14 E0E[21 I E EI [ 1_ S [ED FE IEMD
r~~_DI_[ [ E-FM_* EMOI I 12 E]E E][] E]I[E] E]L[E] [EE] [E]2 E]IF
[]E]DE] E]FI5E] [Q E] EK] E] QJ]E))
H[E
] [GEl 4-P O
[NAQi]
47-O El OO-
[D] E0-FT E10 [
0]
7 I
G El 4-iIODAB1 9-iE 6GZ-il HET-50-TIE6IF]IE[-289 32 7I]E EJ GD El 4l El 5G l EOT-l EEE-T6-29 72 7
2 EM]EIE F]E1E] [II[EI 1 EIIFI 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 53 55 57 59 Number Cycle C:ode Bundle Name Loaded Loaded A
GE1 3-P9DTB3391-13GZ-100OT-146-T6-3964 56 BF213 B
G E14-Pl ODNAB200-3GZ-1 OOT-1 50-T6-2609 36 BF213 C
GE1 3-P9DTB1 56-NOG-1 OOT-146-T6-2887 56 7
D GE14-Pl ODNAB1357-NOG-IOOT-1 50-T6-2889 224 7
E GE14-Pl10DNAB377-16GZ-1 00T-1150-T6-2890 96 7
IF GE1 4-P10ODNAB402-16GZ-1 00T-1150-T6-2891 32 7
G GE1 4-P10ODNAB350-16GZ-100OT-1 50-T6-2892 32 7
H GE1 4-P10ODNAB13147-NOG-100OT-1 50-T6-2893 20 7
1 G E14-P10ODNAB419-16GZ-100OT-1 50-T6-2894 32 7
J GE1 4-P10ODNAB368-15GZ-100OT-1 50-T6-2895 72 7
K GE1 4-P10ODNAB402-19GZ-100OT-1 50-T6-2896 24 7
L GE1 3-P9DTB1 63-NOG-100OT-1 46-T6-2888 52 7
M GE1 4-P10ODNAB377-17GZ-1 00T-1150-T6-2897 32 7
Figure 2. Previous Cycle Core Loading Diagram Page 11 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment
((
{3}))
Figure 3. Figure 4.1 from NEDC-32601-P-A Figure 3. Figure 4.1 from NEDC-32601-P-A Page 12 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment
((
{3}))
Figure 4. Figure 111.5-1 from NEDC-32601P-A Figure 4. Figure 111.5-1 from NEDC-32601P-A Page 13 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment
((
{3}))
Figure 5. Figure 111.5-2 from NEDC-32601P-A Figure 5. Figure 111.5-2 from NEDC-32601P-A Page 14 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 1. Description of Core 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 764 764 Core Limiting Cycle Exposure Point (i.e.
Cycle Exposure at Limiting Point N/A 13000 N/A 16520 (MWd/STU)
% Rated Core Flow N/A 100%
N/A 100%
Reload Fuel Type GE13/GE14 GE 14 Latest Reload Batch 88.0' 42.9 Fraction, %
Latest Reload Average Batch Weight %
2.64 4.08 Enrichment Core Fuel Fraction:
GEl3 21.5 14.1 GE14 78.5 85.9 Core Average Weight %
2.70 3.59 Enrichment Cycle 7 has all fresh bundles except for the 92 peripheral bundles which were reinserts from Browns Ferry 2.
Table 1. Description of Core Page 15 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 2. SLMCPR Calculation Methodologies 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-32601P-A NEDC-32601P-A Uncertainty Power Distribution NEDC-32694P-A NEDC-32694P-A Methodology Power Distribution NEDC-32694P-A NEDC-32694P-A Uncertainty Core Monitoring System 3DMonicore 3DMonicore Table 2. SLMCPR Calculation Methodologies Page 16 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 3. Monte Carlo Calculated SLMCPR vs. Estimate 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
((l_____________________
.1 L
A Table 3. Monte Carlo Calculated SLMCPR vs. Estimate Page 17 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 3. Monte Carlo Calculated SLMCPR vs. Estimate 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
{3)))
Table 3. Monte Carlo Calculated SLMCPR vs. Estimate Page 18 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 4. Non-Power Distribution Uncertainties 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 Measur 1.76 N/A N/A N/A N/A Measurement Feedwater Temperature 0.76 N/A N/A N/A N/A Measurement Reactor Pressure Mea sure 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 MultiplierIII Table 4. Non-Power Distribution Uncertainties Page 19 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 4. Non-Power Distribution Uncertainties Nominal (NRC-Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Current Cycle Current Cycle Approved) Value Minimum Core Rated Core Flow Minimum Core Rated Core Flow
+/- o (%)
Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case NEDC-32601-P-A Feedwater Flow
{3((
{3}))
{3}))
[
3}]E
{3}))
Measurement Feedwater Temperature
((
{3}))
((
{3}))
((
{3}))
Er
{3}))
((
13}))
Measurement Reactor Pressure
((
3))
((
{3))
Er
{3}))
E[
{3}]
Er
{3}))
Measurement Core Inlet Temperature 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Measurement Total Core Flow 6.0 SLO/2.5 TLO N/A 6.0 SLO/2.5 TLO N/A 6.0 SLO/2.5 TLO Measurement Channel Flow Area Er 3}))
Variation
[
{3][
{3
][
{}][
3}][
3}
Friction Factor
((
3))
((
{3}))
((
Er
{3}))
((
{3))
Multiplier Channel Friction 5.0 N/A 5.0 N/A 5.0 Factor Multiplier 5.0 Table 4. Non-Power Distribution Uncertainties Page 20 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 5. Power Distribution Uncertainties Nominal (NRC-Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Current Cycle Current Cycle Description Approved) Value Minimum Core Rated Core Flow Minimum Core Rated Core Flow a
Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case GETAB/NEDC-32601-P-A GEXL R-Factor
((
131))
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 Systematic Effective 8.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A TIP Reading NEDC-32694-P-A, 3DMONICORE GEXL R-Factor
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3}))
N/A
((
31))
Random Effective 2.85 SLO/1.2 TLO N/A 2.85 SLO/1.2 TLO N/A 2.85 SLO/1.2 TLO TIP Reading TIP Integral E[
{31))
N/A E[
{3}))
N/A
((
{3}))
Four Bundle Power Distribution 3}))
N/A N/A
[
3 Surrounding TIP Location Contribution to Bundle Power
((
{3}))
N/A 3))
N/A
[
3 Uncertainty Due to LPRM Update Table 5. Power Distribution Uncertainties Page 21 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 5. Power Distribution Uncertainties Nominal (NRC-Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Current Cycle Current Cycle Description Approved) Value Minimum Core Rated Core Flow Minimum Core Rated Core Flow a a (%)
Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Contribution to Bundle Power Due to
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3}))
Failed TIP Contribution to Bundle Power Due to
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3))
Failed LPRM Total Uncertainty in Calculated Bundle
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3}))
Power Uncertainty of TIP Signal Nodal
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3}))
N/A
((
{3)))
Uncertainty Table 5. Power Distribution Uncertainties Page 22 of 23
GNF NON-PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Class I GNF Attachment Table 6. Critical Power Uncertainties Nominal Value Previous Cycle Previous Cycle Current Cycle Current Cycle Description
+
Minimum Core Rated Core Flow Minimum Core Rated Core Flow
+/-
Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case Flow Limiting Case Limiting Case
((l I
J I
I I
T T
I 4
t t
1 4
4 t
t 1
4 4
4 4
1
{3}))
Table 6. Critical Power Uncertainties Page 23 of 23