ML12153A329

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Attachment 6 - Duke Energy Methodology Report DPC-NE-1007, Revision 0, Conditional Exemption of the EOC Mtc Measurement Methodology (Non-proprietary)
ML12153A329
Person / Time
Site: Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/31/2012
From:
Duke Energy Carolinas
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
DPC-NE-1007, Rev 0
Download: ML12153A329 (54)
v • d • e


Text

ATTACHMENT 6 Duke Energy Methodology Report DPC-NE-1007, Revision 0, "Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement Methodology" (Non-proprietary)

McGuire Nuclear Station Catawba Nuclear Station Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement Methodology DPC-NE-1007 Revision 0 March 2012 Non-Proprietary Nuclear Engineering Division Nuclear Generation Department Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

Statement of Disclaimer There are no warranties expressed, and no claims of content accuracy implied. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC disclaims any loss of liability, either directly or indirectly as a consequence of applying the information presented herein, or in regard to the use and application of the before mentioned material.

The user assumes the entire risk as to the accuracy and the use of this document.

i

Abstract This report describes the Duke Energy Carolinas methodology to allow for the conditional exemption of the end-of-cycle (EOC) rated thermal power (RTP) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement. The exemption of the EOC RTP MTC measurement is predicated on demonstrating that the reactor core is operating as designed. This is accomplished on a cycle-specific basis by confirming predicted and measured physics and power distribution information are within specified limits, and also by demonstrating that the predicted MTC is bounded by the EOC MTC surveillance limit after appropriate adjustments are made for uncertainty and actual core performance.

Approval of the conditional exemption of the EOC measurement is being pursued to remove the performance of an infrequent plant evolution, eliminate a reactivity transient, and to improve plant availability. The methodology presented is applicable to the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations using the CASMO-4 SIMULATE-3 methodology.

ii

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 UFSAR Chapter 15 Accident Analyses Based on the Most Negative MTC A ssum ption ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 MTC Technical Specification Bases .......................................................... 2-2 2.2 Relationship Between The Technical Specification LCO Limit and The Most Negative MT C .................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Relationship Between The Technical Specification 300 ppm Surveillance Limit and L C O L im it .................................................................................. ...... 2-4 3.0 Conditional Exemption of EOC MTC Measurement Methodology ........................ 3-1 3.1 B ackground ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 C ore D esign M odel .............................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Confirmation of Reactor Core Performance .................................................. 3-2 3.4 Corrections to Predicted MTC Prior to Comparison Against the EOC MTC Surveillance Lim it ............................................................................... 3-3 3.4.1 [ C orrection .............................................................................. 3-4 3.4.2 [ ] C orrection ............................................................ 3-4 3.5 Predicted to Measured MTC Uncertainty ..................................................... 3-5 3.6 Application of the Conditional Exemption Methodology ................................... 3-9 3.6.1 Cycle-Specific Evaluations and Calculations ................................................ 3-10 3.6.2 Technical Specification and COLR Changes ................................................ 3-10 4.0 Safety Analysis Impact .......................................................................... 4-1 5.0 Im plem entation ................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 C onclusions ........................................................................................ 6-1 7.0 References ......................................................................................... 7-1 Appendix A: Proposed Technical Specification Revisions Appendix B: Proposed COLR Revisions Appendix C: Demonstration Analysis for the Conditional Exemption of the 300 ppm EOC Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurement iii

List of Tables 2-1 UFSAR Chapter 15 Transients Assuming a Most Negative MTC ......................... 2-5 3-1 CASMO-4/SLMULATE-3 Benchmark Results For LEU Gadolinia and Non-Gadolinia Core D esign s ................................................................................................................... 3-11 3-2 Criteria for the Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement .................. 3-11 3-3 EOC MTC Measured Parameter Sensitivity Required Parameter Change to Produce a 1.0 pcm/°F MTC Measurement Error For MTC Measurements Based on a 3 OF and 5 OF M oderator Temperature Change ................................................................. 3-12 3-4 Normality Test Results for BOC and EOC MTC Measured Minus Predicted Deviations Using the WTest for Normality ................................................... 3-12 3-5 Revised Predicted MTC Calculation Worksheet .............................................. 3-13 iv

List of Figures 3-1 MTC As A Function of Axial Flux Difference for Typical Core Designs .................. 3-14 3-2 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 BOC HZP ITC Measured Minus Predicted ITC As a Function of Predicted ITC ......................................................................... 3-14 3-3 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 BOC HZP ITC Measured Minus Predicted ITC As a Function of Critical Boron Concentration ...................................................... 3-15 3-4 CASMO-4/SJMULATE-3 BOC HZP ITC Measured Minus Predicted ITC As a Function of Core Average Burnup ................................................................... 3-15 3-5 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 EOC REP Measured Minus Predicted MTC As a Function of Predicted MT C .................................................................................. 3-16 3-6 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 EOC HFP Measured Minus Predicted MTC As a Function of C ore A verage B urnup ............................................................................. 3-16 V

List of Abbreviations AFD Axial Flux Difference ANS American Nuclear Society ARO All rods out BOC Beginning of cycle COLR Core Operating Limits Report DRWMTM Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement EFPD Effective Full Power Days EOC End of cycle HFP Hot full power HZP Hot zero power ITC Isothermal temperature coefficient LCO Limiting condition for operation MTC Moderator temperature coefficient ppm Parts per million pcm Percent milli-Rho, 10-5 AK/K RCCA Rod Cluster Control Assembly RCS Reactor Coolant System RIL Rod insertion limit RTP Rated thermal power SR Surveillance Requirement TS Technical Specifications UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report vi

1.0 Introduction This report describes the methodology used by Duke Energy Carolinas to allow for the conditional exemption of the end-of-cycle (EOC) rated thermal power (RTP) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR). Technical Specification SR 3.1.3.2 requires the measurement of the MTC within 7 EFPD after reaching the equivalent of an equilibrium RTP all rods out (ARO) boron concentration of 300 ppm. The conditional exemption of the 300 ppm MTC measurement is being pursued to remove an infrequent plant evolution, eliminate a reactivity transient, and to improve plant availability. Plant availability is improved by eliminating a loss in thermal efficiency during the test and by eliminating an EOC thermal transit that has a negative effect on reactor coolant pump seal performance. A secondary consideration for removal of the EOC 300 ppm MTC measurement requirement relates to the difficulty in performing an accurate measurement, and the requirement that several plant systems be operated in a mode or condition not typical of steady state operation. Some examples include: reactor coolant temperature being decreased -5 degrees F from the normal programmed temperature, Rod Control being placed in Manual, and steam by-pass control being placed in pressure mode versus T-avg mode.

Section 2.0 of this report describes the use of the most negative MTC input assumption in updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) accident analyses, Technical Specification bases, and the relationship between the MTC assumed in accident analyses and the Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation and Surveillance limits. Section 3.0 presents the conditional exemption of the EOC MTC measurement methodology, and the revisions to Technical Specifications and the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) required for implementation of the methodology. Section 4.0 presents the safety analysis impact and Section 5.0 describes the implementation of the method. Section 6.0 presents conclusions.

Appendices A and B provide sample mark-ups of Technical Specifications and the COLR required to implement the methodology. Appendix C presents a demonstration analysis showing the application of the methodology.

The methodology described in this report is applicable to the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations using the CASMO-4 SIMULATE-3 methodology, Reference 1.

1-1

[Page left intentionally blank]

1-2

2.0 UFSAR Chapter 15 Accident Analyses Based on the Most Negative MTC Assumption The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 15 accident analyses are performed to confirm the design of the reactor and associated systems are capable of preserving the integrity of the reactor core and components during postulated accidents and transients resulting from equipment failures, and malfunctions. The accident analyses also demonstrate that the consequences from postulated accidents satisfy applicable acceptance criteria.

The analysis of each accident is based on the selection of conservative boundary conditions, initial conditions, models and key physics parameters that collectively produce a conservative transient result.

Physics parameters which directly affect the outcome of each transient are identified and selected to bound the expected initial conditions for each transient. Bounding parameters are determined by consideration of allowed operational conditions appropriate for each accident. The Doppler temperature coefficient and moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) are two of the more important parameters that affect the transient response during a postulated accident. Each of these coefficients affects the rate and amount of reactivity feedback during the transient. They are key parameters in the accident analysis and bounding values for each parameter are selected to produce conservative consequences for each accident analyzed.

The most negative moderator temperature coefficient is a key physics parameter important in the analysis of Chapter 15 accidents that result from an overcooling of the primary system. These accidents are characterized by an increase in feed water flow or secondary steam flow that results in a decrease in primary system moderator temperature. The decrease in moderator temperature when coupled with a negative MTC results in an addition of positive reactivity to the reactor core, and a subsequent power excursion. A bounding transient response for these accidents is analyzed by maximizing the positive reactivity addition from the primary system cooldown by assuming the most negative MTC expected to occur during normal operation or during a Condition I transient. The most negative MTC occurs at the convergence of core conditions consisting of hot full power (HFP), control rods inserted (as allowed by Technical Specifications), and 0 ppm soluble boron. Because of the importance of this parameter to accident analysis results, the most negative MTC assumed in the accident analysis is confirmed to bound the value calculated for each reload core design.

The UFSAR Chapter 15 accidents that use the most negative MTC as a key input parameter are summarized in Table 2-1. Each of these accidents are discussed in the Duke Energy Carolinas 2-1

methodology report DPC-NE-3001 -PA, "Multidimensional Reactor Transient and Safety Analysis Physics Parameters Methodology", Reference 2.

2.1 MTC Technical Specification Bases Catawba and McGuire Technical Specifications define Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) limits and Surveillance Requirements (SR) for the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC). Technical Specification limits for the MTC exist because the MTC is an important initial condition of design basis accident analyses, and the parameter can be readily measured and confirmed during normal plant operation. McGuire and Catawba plant Technical Specifications require measurement of the MTC to ensure the value of the coefficient remains within the limiting condition assumption assumed in the UFSAR accident and transient analyses. Technical Specification LCO limits exist for both upper and lower MTC limits. The upper limit (i.e. positive MTC limit) is applicable in Mode 1, and in Mode 2 with keffective > 1.0. The lower limit (i.e. most negative MTC limit) is applicable in Modes 1, 2 and 3. All MTC LCO and Surveillance limits are specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). Moderator temperature coefficient measurements are performed at BOC zero power conditions during the initial startup of the reactor following a refueling outage, and at EOC within 7 effective full power days (EFPD) after reaching the equivalent of an equilibrium rated thermal power (RTP) all rods out (ARO) boron concentration of 300 ppm. The confirmation of Technical Specification Limiting Condition of Operation and Surveillance MTC limits ensure the acceptability of the MTC assumption in UFSAR Chapter 15 accidents, and validates that these accidents are bounding with respect to this key parameter. The BOC measurement is also compared against a predicted value, and has a dual purpose of confirming the acceptability of the core model.

The conditional exemption is only being pursued for the EOC MTC measurement for the reasons specified in Section 1. Therefore, the remaining discussion is limited to the TS requirements for the EOC MTC limit.

The Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement to measure the EOC MTC when core reactivity reaches the equivalent of an equilibrium RTP ARO boron concentration of 300 ppm condition provides confirmation that the lower LCO MTC limit (most negative) is satisfied when the 300 ppm equilibrium soluble boron MTC Surveillance limit is satisfied. If the 300 ppm MTC Surveillance limit is not satisfied, then it is possible that the EOC LCO MTC limit may also be exceeded prior to EOC conditions being 2-2

reached. Failure to satisfy the 300 ppm MTC Surveillance limit requires subsequent MTC measurements at a frequency of 14 EFPD to ensure the EOC MTC LCO limit is met.

2.2 Relationship Between The Technical Specification LCO Limit and The Most Negative MTC The Technical Specification LCO limit is established to ensure that the MTC value assumed in the evaluation of UFSAR Chapter 15 accident and transient analyses is not exceeded. The difference between the most negative analysis limit assumed in the safety analysis and the TS LCO MTC limit is the result of differences in the initial condition assumptions made in the evaluation of UFSAR Chapter 15 accidents relative to the conditions associated with the Technical Specification LCO limit. The Technical Specification LCO limit corresponds to EOC rated thermal power (RTP) ARO equilibrium conditions.

2-3

2.3 Relationship Between The Technical Specification 300 ppm Surveillance Limit and LCO Limit The EOC MTC surveillance is performed at a time in life corresponding to equilibrium RTP ARO 300 ppm condition to ensure the LCO limit will be met and safety analysis assumptions preserved. The derivation of the 300 ppm surveillance limit from the LCO limit (RTP ARO 0 ppm equilibrium conditions) accounts for the change in MTC between the 300 ppm surveillance limit and 0 ppm LCO limit considering the simultaneous effects of soluble boron and bumup.

If the measured MTC is more negative than the 300 ppm surveillance limit, then it is possible that the EOC LCO limit may be exceeded before EOC is reached. Therefore, failure to satisfy the 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit requires subsequent MTC measurements at a frequency of 14 EFPD to ensure the EOC LCO MTC limit is preserved. Technical Specifications also requires a second MTC surveillance at 60 ppm that is conditionally performed if the 300 ppm surveillance limit is exceeded. The 60 ppm surveillance limit is calculated in the same manner as the 300 ppm surveillance limit. If the measured MTC is less negative than the 60 ppm MTC surveillance limit, then the EOC LCO limit will be satisfied ensuring safety analysis MTC assumptions are satisfied. If the MTC is more negative than the 60 ppm surveillance limit, then MTC measurements are continued on a 14 EFPD frequency.

2-4

Table 2-1 UFSAR Chapter 15 Transients Assuming a Most Negative MTC UFSAR Section T.ansient 15.1.1 Feedwater System Malfunction Causing a Reduction in Feedwater Temperature 15.1.2 Feedwater System Malfunction Causing an Increase in Feedwater Flow 15.1.3 Excessive Increase in Secondary Steam Flow 15.2.6 Loss Of Non-emergency AC Power to Station Auxiliaries 15.4.4 Startup of an Inactive Reactor Coolant Pump at an Incorrect Temperature 2-5

[Page left intentionally blank]

2-6

3.0 Conditional Exemption of EOC MTC Measurement Methodology

3.1 Background

The conditional exemption methodology for eliminating the end-of-cycle (EOC) MTC measurement is based on demonstrating that the core is operating as designed, and the application of conservative allowances to the predicted MTC to confirm Technical Specification Surveillance and LCO limits are met. The confirmation of Technical Specification Surveillance and LCO limits validates the EOC safety analysis MTC assumption and in the process safety analysis conclusions for the transients and accidents based on the most negative MTC assumption. The core is confirmed operating as designed by ensuring deviations between predicted and measured parameters are within specified acceptance criteria as described in Section 3.3.

The conditional exemption methodology is composed of three primary elements. They are:

  • Use of an NRC approved core design model that has been validated against reactivity and power distribution measurements
  • Confirmation the reactor core is operating as designed for the core where the conditional exemption of the EOC MTC measurement is being sought

" Correction of the predicted MTC prior to comparison against the EOC MTC surveillance limit Each of the above elements, and the application of this methodology is discussed in this section.

3.2 Core Design Model The conditional exemption methodology requires the use of a core model that has been benchmarked against measured core power distributions and reactivity data, and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the use in safety related calculations. The core model results should be consistent with, or should produce results consistent with the core model used in the verification of input assumptions used in the evaluation of UFSAR Chapter 15 accident and transient analyses.

Duke Energy Carolinas currently uses the CASMO-4 based S UIMLATE-3 core model to perform reload design calculations. The CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 core model has been extensively benchmarked in Reference 1 to demonstrate its ability to accurately predict core reactivity and power distributions for reactor cores containing low enriched uranium fuel, mixed oxide fuel, and for cores containing integral 3-1

and discrete burnable absorbers. Reactivity related benchmark results for the CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 code system are shown in Table 3-1. Power distribution benchmark results are shown in Reference 1.

The results demonstrate that CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 core models are acceptable for performing reactivity and power distribution calculations for use in safety related reload design analyses. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has reviewed and approved the CASMO-4/SMULATE-3 core model for use in safety related analyses in Reference 1.

The CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 core model is used to perform core physics parameter and power distribution calculations to confirm the acceptability of the physics parameter assumptions made in UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses, and to confirm the acceptability of thermal acceptance criteria for each accident. One of many cycle-specific reload checks performed verifies the acceptability of the EOC rated thermal power (RTP) ARO 300 ppm MTC Surveillance limit, the EOC RTP ARO LCO MTC limit, and the most negative MTC safety analysis limit. The core model is also used to develop physics parameters and power distribution information to support the startup and operation of a reactor core following a refueling outage. While Duke Energy Carolinas currently uses the CASMO-4 based SIMULATE-3 core model to perform reload design calculations, the conditional exemption methodology is intended to be independent of the core model used provided the core model has been appropriately benchmarked, and has been reviewed and approved by the NRC for use in safety related calculations.

3.3 Confirmation of Reactor Core Performance Startup physics testing is performed following each refueling outage to confirm that the core operating characteristics are consistent with the design. The successful completion of the physics test program coupled with meeting Technical Specification surveillances performed at RTP during the cycle ensure that the core is operating as designed, and key accident analysis assumptions assumed in the evaluation of UFSAR Chapter 15 accidents are preserved for the operating core. The core performance parameters used to justify the conditional exemption of the EOC MTC measurement are the same reactivity and power distribution measurements performed as part of the startup physics testing program, and required by Technical Specifications Surveillances during full power operation. The parameters evaluated to confirm core operating characteristics are:

  • Assembly Power (Normalized Measured Reaction Rates)
  • Measured Incore Quadrant Power Tilt

" Core Reactivity 3-2

  • BOC HZP Isothermal Temperature Coefficient
  • Control Bank Worth Comparisons between predicted and measured results for each parameter is performed to determine if the core is operating as designed. The core is operating as designed if the predicted to measured deviations for all core performance parameters satisfy the acceptance criteria for each parameter. If all core performance criteria are satisfied, then there is high confidence in the accuracy of the predicted EOC MTC, and the measurement required by Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.1.3.2 can be exempted. Conversely, if core performance criteria are not satisfied, then the accuracy of the core model comes into question, and the SR 3.1.3.2 EOC 300 ppm MTC measurement is performed to demonstrate the MTC safety analysis input assumption is satisfied.

Table 3-2 shows the core performance criteria that must be satisfied. The core performance criteria for each parameter, with the exception of the incore tilt parameters are based on the NRC-approved Duke reload startup physics test program (Reference 3), modified to include the dynamic rod worth measurement (DRWM) technique as described in WCAP-13360-P-A (Reference 4), and Technical Specifications (Reference 5). The performance criteria for incore tilt are industry accepted values based on the level of incore tilt where an additional evaluation of the core power distribution and affected safety analyses may be warranted.

3.4 Corrections to Predicted MTC Prior to Comparison Against the EOC MTC Surveillance Limit The moderator temperature coefficient is primarily a function of moderator density, soluble boron concentration and burnup, and to a lesser extent a function of axial flux difference (AFD) and rod cluster control assembly (RCCA) position. The predicted MTC for comparison against the EOC surveillance limit is calculated at equilibrium RTP ARO 300 ppm conditions, and implicitly includes a [

I Since the core conditions corresponding to the 300 ppm MTC surveillance fix moderator density, soluble boron concentration and RCCA position, corrections to the predicted MTC only need to account for I I at the time in core life that the core reaches RTP ARO 300 ppm equilibrium conditions.

3-3

I I prior to comparison against the EOC surveillance limit. [

used in the conditional exemption methodology is developed in Section 3.5.

3.4.1 [ Correction I!

I I

I II ] (eq. 3-1)

I IA typical MTC [ I has a magnitude of [ I The MTC [

] is transmitted to the site as part of the normal reload design process.

3.4.2 [ ] Correction The MTC becomes more negative as axial flux is skewed to the bottom of the reactor core from both the redistribution of the moderator temperature distribution, and the preferential weighting of the flux in the bottom of the reactor core. Since the reactor operates with a negative MTC, more power is produced in the bottom half of the reactor core than top, resulting in burnup accumulating at a greater rate in the bottom of the reactor core than top. The axial burnup distribution and axial core isotopic inventory resulting from different burnup rates produces a neutron spectrum change in the high burnup region of the core. A bottom peaked flux shape results in increased resonance absorption because of the neutron spectrum and core isotopic inventory, and also results in an effective increase in the core average 3-4

moderator temperature because the moderator is heated at a faster rate. [

I The change in MTC [ ] is shown for two typical 18 month core designs in Figure 3-1.

I I

The MTC [ I to account for a [

] conditions is calculated using equation 3-2.

I I (eq. 3-2)

I I A typical conservat ive MTC [ ] has a magnitude of [ I Fhe MTC [

I is transmitted to the site as part of the normal reload design process.

3.5 Predicted to Measured MTC Uncertainty The CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 core model is benchmarked against measured moderator temperature coefficients from the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations to assess the accuracy of the core model and to develop an uncertainty in the predicted moderator temperature coefficient. A statistical analysis of predicted and measured MTC results is performed to develop an uncertainty in the predicted MTC using MTC measurements performed during startup physics testing at the beginning of each fuel cycle, and measurements performed at EOC near RTP ARO 300 ppm conditions.

The BOC HZP MTC measurement is performed at zero power xenon free conditions with an equilibrium boron concentration. A moderator temperature change is introduced and the associated reactivity change 3-5

is measured with a reactivity computer. The slope of the reactivity change with moderator temperature is evaluated to determine the isothermal temperature coefficient. The MTC is calculated by subtracting the predicted Doppler temperature coefficient from the isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC).

The EOC MTC measurement is performed near end-of-life (EOL) corresponding to 300 ppm RTP equilibrium conditions. The equilibrium condition requirement is to preclude contamination of the measurement from a pre-existing xenon transient. The core reactivity during the test is kept close to zero to minimize reactor perturbations in power. Control rod positions during the test are typically fixed. The measurement is initiated by the addition of soluble boron to the reactor coolant system (RCS) to produce a temperature change of 3 'F to 5 'F. The negative reactivity from the boron addition is compensated for by a corresponding decrease in moderator temperature. Data is acquired after an appropriate delay to allow for full mixing of boron in the RCS. A boron dilution is next performed to return the core moderator temperature to its nominal value. Data is again acquired after the dilution once the core reaches a stable condition. MTCs from both the cooldown and heat-up portions of the test are averaged.

The duration of the EOC measurements is typically eight to twelve hours, versus a typical duration of one hour for the BOC measurement. Because the EOC test is performed at power, the reactivity measurement calculated from the boron concentration change must be corrected to account for changes in power level, 1 1, xenon concentration, [, and for control rod position, if control rods are moved. [

3-6

I I

Comparisons of predicted and measured BOC ITCs for 35 McGuire and Catawba fuel cycles were performed to determine the accuracy of the CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 core model at BOC conditions.

The mean measured minus predicted deviation is [ with a standard deviation of

]. Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 present measured minus predicted ITC deviations as a function of predicted ITC, core boron concentration and core average burnup. The results show excellent agreement between CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 predicted and measured BOC ITCs, and no discernible biases associated with the predictive capability of the code with respect to burnup or boron concentration. The measured and predicted ITCs are corrected by the same predicted Doppler temperature coefficient.

Therefore, the mean ITC error and standard deviation are reflective of the MTC mean error and standard deviation.

Comparisons of predicted and measured EOC MTCs for 33 McGuire and Catawba fuel cycles show good agreement with a mean measured minus predicted deviation of I I with a standard deviation of [ I. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show measured minus predicted MTC deviations as a function of predicted MTC and core average burnup. [

I A statistical evaluation of the BOC and EOC MTC measured minus predicted data was performed to develop 95/95 one-sided tolerance uncertainties. The Wtest for normality was used to confirm the assumption of normality at a 1% significance level as described in Reference 6. The results from the W test for normality are shown in Table 3-4. If the value of Wfor the data set is larger than the value of W indicating that the data set is normal, then the test for normality is confirmed. The value of Wcalculated for both the BOC and EOC MTC measured minus predicted data sets is larger than the value of Wthat is representative of a normal distribution. Therefore, each data set is assumed normal, and a one-sided tolerance limit is developed based on the assumption of a normal distribution.

The 95/95 one-sided tolerance uncertainty (K(Y) for the BOC MTC data set is [

] using a K factor of [ I from Reference 7. The 95/95 one-sided tolerance 3-7

uncertainty (Kc) for the EOC MTC data set is [ I using a K factor of [ I from Reference

7. The EOC MTC uncertainty is applied as a one-sided uncertainty to make the predicted MTC more negative.

3-8

I 1

3.6 Application of the Conditional Exemption Methodology The conditional exemption of the EOC near RTP 300 ppm MTC measurement specified in Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 is based on the acceptable performance of the core model against an established set of core performance criteria defined in Table 3-2. The cycle-specific confirmation of the core performance criteria is used to demonstrate that the reactor core is operating as designed, and provides validation of the safety analysis by confirming key accident analysis assumptions assumed in the evaluation of UJFSAR Chapter 15 accidents. The cycle-specific confirmation of core performance criteria is performed using an NRC-approved core design model that has been validated against reactivity and power distribution measurements and is consistent with the model used in the safety analysis.

The core performance benchmark criteria presented in Table 3-2 is confirmed using startup physics test results, and reactivity and power distribution measurements performed as required by Technical Specifications 3.1.2 (Core Reactivity), 3.2.1 (Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor (FQ(X,Y,Z)), and 3.2.2 (Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor (FAH(X,Y)). If all performance criteria are satisfied, then the

[

] prior to comparison against the EOC 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit. The adjusted MTC is referred to as the "Revised Predicted MTC", and is calculated using the worksheet presented in Table 3-5.

If the Revised Predicted MTC is less negative than the EOC 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit specified in the COLR, then the EOC MTC measurement required by SR 3.1.3.2 is not required. If any of the performance criteria are not met, or the Revised Predicted MTC is more negative than the EOC 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit, then the EOC SR 3.1.3.2 300 ppm MTC measurement is required.

The application of the conditional exemption methodology is procedurally controlled.

3-9

3.6.1 Cycle-Specific Evaluations and Calculations Cycle-specific calculations or evaluations are performed for each reload core to develop the [

I required to calculate the Revised Predicted MTC. The core performance benchmark criteria presented in Table 3-2 is also evaluated for each reload core to determine the applicability of the EOC MTC exemption methodology.

3.6.2 Technical Specification and COLR Changes The following Technical Specification changes are required to implement the conditional exemption EOC MTC methodology.

a. Modify TS 3.1.3 Surveillance Requirement 3.1.3.2 to allow for the conditional exemption of the 300 ppm MTC measurement.
b. Update the list of analytical methods in TS 5.6.5.b used to determine the core operating limits to include the conditional exemption EOC MTC methodology report DPC-NE-1007-P.

The following Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) changes are required to implement the conditional exemption EOC MTC methodology.

a. Add DPC-NE-1007-P to the list of analytical methods used to determine core operating limits for parameters identified in Technical Specification 5.6.5.a.
b. Add the option to conditionally exempt the EOC 300 ppm MTC measurement if all core performance benchmark data are satisfied and the Revised Predicted MTC is less negative than the SR 3.1.3.2 300 ppm MTC surveillance.

The proposed changes to Technical Specifications and the Core Operating Limits Report are provided in Appendices A and B. There are no changes to the Technical Specification bases required to implement the methodology.

3-10

Table 3-1 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 Benchmark Results For LEU Gadolinia and Non-Gadolinia Core Designs

.standrd,,

.. ,'Parameter Cor Tye Mean. Deviation BOC HZP Soluble Boron Concentration, ppmb LEU Gadolinia -12 10 HFP Soluble Boron Concentration, ppmb LEU Gadolinia -11 11 BOC HZP Control Rod Worth, % LEU Gadolinia -2.7 3.5 BOC HZP Isothermal Temperature Coefficient, pcm/°F LEU Gadolinia -1.0 0.14 BOC HZP Soluble Boron Concentration, ppmb LEU [ ]

HFP Soluble Boron Concentration, ppmb LEU [ LL BOC HZP Control Rod Worth, % LEU [ ] [

BOC HZP Isothermal Temperature Coefficient, pcm/°F LEU ] I[

LEU = low enriched uranium Table 3-2 Criteria for the Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement Paraer ~ rtriaI, Assembly Power (Measured Normalized Reaction Rate) Note 1 +/- 10%

Measured Incore Quadrant Tilt (Intermediate Power) Note 1 +/-4%

Measured Incore Quadrant Tilt (Full Power) +/- 2%

Core Reactivity Difference +/- 1000 pcm BOC HZP ITC +/-2 pcm/°F Individual Control Bank Worth +/- 15% or +/- 100 pcm Total Control Bank Worth +/- 8 or 10% Note 2

% Difference = (Measured - Predicted)/Predicted

  • 100 Note 1: Applicable for power distribution measurements greater than or equal to 50% RTP and for reaction rates greater than or equal to 1.0. Low power measurements are not considered because of the potential for high noise to signal ratios leading to erroneous results.

Note 2: The safety evaluations from References 4 and 8 require the total bank worth review criterion be reduced from 10% to 8% to account for the potential propagation of errors in predicted parameters unfavorably influencing measured rod worths.

3-11

Table 3-3 EOC MTC Measured Parameter Sensitivity Required Parameter Change to Produce a 1.0 pcm/°F MTC Measurement Error For MTC Measurements Based on a 3 'F and 5 'F Moderator Temperature Change r

Parameter 3 OF Change 5 °F Change Table 3-4 Normality Test Results for BOC and EOC MTC Measured Minus Predicted Deviations Using the WTest for Normality Parameter BOC DataSet, EOCData Set 3-12

Table 3-5 Revised Predicted MTC Calculation Worksheet A.

B.

+

1-C.

D.

E. Conditional Exemption Determination COLR 300 ppm MTC Surveillance Limit: pcm/°F If the Revised Predicted MTC from step D is less negative than the COLR 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit, then the rated thermal power 300 ppm MTC measurement is not required per Technical Specification SR 3.1.3.2.

3-13

Figure 3-1 MTC as A Function of Axial Flux Difference For Typical Core Designs Figure 3-2 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 BOC HZP ITC Measured Minus Predicted ITC As a Function of Predicted ITC 3-14

Figure 3-3 CASMO-4/S1MULATE-3 BOC HZP ITC Measured Minus Predicted 1TC As a Function of Critical Boron Concentration Figure 3-4 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 BOC HZP ITC Measured Minus Predicted ITC As a Function of Core Average Burnup 3-15

Figure 3-5 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 EOC HFP Measured Minus Predicted MTC As a Function of Predicted MTC Figure 3-6 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 EOC HFP Measured Minus Predicted MTC As a Function of Core Average Burnup 3-16

4.0 Safety Analysis Impact

[

] The MTC assumption along with other key parameters assumed in UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses are conservatively selected, and coupled with the use of conservative models, initial conditions, boundary conditions and code options, produce a bounding transient result as described in Reference 2. The cycle-specific verification of the most negative MTC, Technical Specification MTC LCO and Surveillance limits, and other key parameters assumed in UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses ensures that the accident analysis assumptions bound the reload core and Technical Specification limits are satisfied. The conditional exemption methodology is independent of the methodology used to verify the most negative MTC (described in Reference 2), and the methodology used to verify and calculate reactivity and power distribution Technical Specification Surveillance and LCO limits. The use of this methodology therefore does not result in a reduction in safety, impact the safety analysis or plant operation.

The application of the conditional exemption methodology required demonstrating that the reactor core is operating as designed. This is accomplished by the cycle-specific benchmark of both reactivity and power distribution data against a set of core performance criteria. An acceptable benchmark provides a high level of confidence in the predictive capability of the core model used to verify UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analysis assumptions, and its ability to predict core performance. The predicted MTC is adjusted for core characteristics that are different from those assumed in the EOC MTC prediction, and for the uncertainty in the MTC prediction. The Revised Predicted MTC is then compared against the EOC 300 ppm RTP MTC COLR limit to ensure the safety analysis EOC most negative MTC assumption bounds the reload core value. A positive comparison confirms the acceptability of the most negative MTC assumed in the safety analysis.

4-1

[ Page left intentionally blank ]

4-2

5.0 Implementation Confirmation of the most negative EOC MTC limit specified in the COLR, and the determination of the applicability of the conditional EOC MTC exemption methodology for each reload cycle is procedurally controlled. The methodology described in DPC-NE-1 007-P provides the basis for all calculations and evaluations performed in plant procedures. Specific elements included in plant procedures to exempt the EOC MTC measurement are:

  • Identification of the NRC-approved core model being used
  • Comparisons of predicted and measured startup and operational data to validate [

l

  • [ 1

" Inclusion of data required to calculate the Revised Predicted MTC at RTP 300 ppm ARO conditions

  • Calculation of the Revised Predicted MTC for comparison against the SR 3.1.3.2 MTC limit at RTP 300 ppm ARO conditions
  • Confirmation of the SR 3.1.3.2 MTC limit Plant procedures are developed and executed in accordance with Duke's QA program and are available for NRC audit or review upon request.

A demonstration analysis showing comparisons of predicted and measured data used to assess model performance, and calculation of a Revised Predicted MTC for an actual core design are presented in Appendix C.

5-1

[Page left intentionally blank]

5-2

6.0 Conclusions The conditional exemption of the EOC MTC measurement is based on the successful demonstration that the reactor core is operating as designed as determined by the benchmark of cycle-specific core reactivity and power distribution data against core performance criteria. Verification of the most negative MTC limit assumed in UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses is performed by modifying the predicted MTC by differences in core characteristics between the operating core and those assumed in the prediction, and by I I If the Revised Predicted MTC (includes MTC uncertainty and adjustments) is less negative than the SR 3.1.3.2 EOC 300 ppm RTP MTC surveillance limit, then SR 3.1.3.2 requiring the 300 ppm EOC MTC measurement can be eliminated. Conversely, if the Revised Predicted MTC is more negative than the SR 3.1.3.2 EOC 300 ppm RTP MTC surveillance limit, then the SR 3.1.3.2 300 ppm EOC MTC measurement must be performed. The comparison of the Revised Predicted MTC against the EOC 300 ppm RTP MTC surveillance limit also serves to confirm the Technical Specification EOC LCO limit and to validate the most negative MTC assumption assumed in the safety analysis.

The report also presented comparisons between measured and predicted MTCs at EOC RTP ARO 300 ppm conditions to justify the [ I and addressed the safety impact of the methodology. The conditional exemption methodology is independent of the methodology used to verify the most negative MTC, and the methodology used to establish Technical Specification Surveillance and LCO limits. The use of this methodology does not result in a reduction in safety, impact the safety analysis or plant operation.

6-1

I

[Page left intentionally blank]

6-2

7.0 References

1. DPC-NE-1005-PA, "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX",

Revision 1, November 2008

2. DPC-NE-3001 -PA, "Multidimensional Reactor Transient and Safety Analysis Physics Parameters Methodology", Revision Oa, May 2009
3. Letter, D. S. Hood (U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to H. B. Tucker, (Duke Power Company), "Reload Startup Physics Test Program for the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations", May 18, 1988 Letter, D. S. Hood (U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to H. B. Tucker, (Duke Power Company), "Correction to SER on Reload Startup Physics Test Program for McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations", June 10, 1988
4. "Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Technique", Revision 1, WCAP-13360-P-A, October 1998
5. McGuire Nuclear Station and Catawba Nuclear Station Technical Specifications
6. "Assessment of Assumption of Normality (Employing Individual Observed Values),"ANSI-N15.15-1974, October 1973
7. D. B. Owen, "Factors for One-Sided Tolerance Limits and for Variables Sampling Plans," SCR-607, Sandia Corporation, pp. 46-54 (Table 2.4) March 1963
8. DPC-NE-2012-A, "Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Using CASMO/SIMULATE", Revision Oa, February 2010 7-1

[Page left intentionally blank]

7-2

Appendix A Proposed Technical Specification Revisions Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) - TS 3.1.3 Surveillance Requirements (SR 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2)

SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY SR 3.1.3.1 Verify MTC is within upper limit. Once prior to entering MODE 1 after each refueling SR 3.1.3.2 ------------------- NOTES --------------------

1. Not required to be performed until 7 effective full power days (EFPD) after reaching the equivalent of an equilibrium RTP all rods out (ARO) boron concentration of 300 ppm. Measurement of the MTC may be suspended provided the benchmark criteria specified in DPC-NE-1007-PA, and the Revised MTC Prediction specified in the COLR are satisfied.
2. If the MTC is more negative than the 300 ppm Surveillance limit (not LCO limit) specified in the COLR, SR 3.1.3.2 shall be repeated once per 14 EFPD during the remainder of the fuel cycle.
3. SR 3.1.3.2 need not be repeated if the MTC measured at the equivalent of equilibrium RTP-ARO boron concentration of< 60 ppm is less negative than the 60 ppm Surveillance limit specified in the COLR.

Once each cycle Verify MTC is within lower limit.

A-1

Appendix A Proposed Technical Specification Revisions 5.6 Reporting Requirements 5.6.5 CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR) (continued)

b. The analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits shall be those previously reviewed and approved by the NRC, specifically those described in the following documents:
1. WCAP-9272-P-A, "WESTINGHOUSE RELOAD SAFETY EVALUATION METHODOLOGY" (WY Proprietary).
2. WCAP-10266-P-A, "THE 1981 VERSION OF WESTINGHOUSE EVALUATION MODEL USING BASH CODE" (W Proprietary).
3. BAW-10168-P-A, "B&W Loss-of-Coolant Accident Evaluation Model for Recirculating Steam Generator Plants" (B&W Proprietary).
4. DPC-NE-201 1-P-A, "Duke Power Company Nuclear Design Methodology for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors" (DPC Proprietary).
5. DPC-NE-3001-P-A, "Multidimensional Reactor Transients and Safety Analysis Physics Parameter Methodology" (DPC Proprietary).
6. DPC-NF-2010-A, "Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station Catawba Nuclear Station Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design."
7. DPC-NE-3002-A, "FSAR Chapter 15 System Transient Analysis Methodology."
8. DPC-NE-3000-P-A, "Thermal-Hydraulic Transient Analysis Methodology" (DPC Proprietary).
9. DPC-NE- 1004-A, "Design Methodology Using CASMO-3/SIMULATE-3P."1
10. DPC-NE-2004-P-A, "Duke Power Company McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations Core Thermal-Hydraulic Methodology using VIPRE-01" (DPC Proprietary).
11. DPC-NE-2005-P-A, "Thermal Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology" (DPC Proprietary).
12. DPC-NE-2008-P-A, "Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology Using TACO3" (DPC Proprietary).

A-2

Appendix A Proposed Technical Specification Revisions 5.6 Reporting Requirements cont'd 5.6.5 CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR) (continued)

13. WCAP-10054-P-A, "Westinghouse Small Break ECCS Evaluation Model Using the NOTRUMP Code" (W Proprietary).
14. DPC-NE-2009-P-A, "Westinghouse Fuel Transition Report" (DPC Proprietary).
15. WCAP-12945-P-A, Volume 1 and Volumes 2-5, "Code Qualification Document for Best-Estimate Loss of Coolant Analysis" (W Proprietary).
16. DPC-NE-1 005P-A, "Duke Power Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX," (DPC Proprietary).
17. BAW-10231P-A, "COPERNIC Fuel Rod Design Computer Code,"

(Framatome ANP Proprietary).

18. DPC-NE-1007-PA, "Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement Methodology" (Duke and W Proprietary).

The COLR will contain the complete identification for each of the Technical Specifications referenced topical reports used to prepare the COLR (i.e., report number, title, revision number, report date or NRC SER date, and any supplements).

c. The core operating limits shall be determined such that all applicable limits (e.g., fuel thermal mechanical limits, core thermal hydraulic limits, Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) limits, nuclear limits such as SDM, transient analysis limits, and accident analysis limits) of the safety analysis are met.
d. The COLR, including any mid-cycle revisions or supplements, shall be provided upon issuance for each reload cycle to the NRC.

A-3

[Page left intentionally blank]

A-4

Appendix B Proposed Core Operating Limits Report Revisions 1.1 Analytical Methods The analytical methods used to determine core operating limits for parameters identified in Technical Specifications and previously reviewed and approved by the NRC as specified in Technical Specification 5.6.5 are as follows.

14. DPC-NF-20 10-A, "Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station Catawba Nuclear Station Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design."

Revision 2a Report Date: December 2009

15. DPC-NE-20 11-PA, "Duke Power Company Nuclear Design Methodology for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors," (DPC Proprietary).

Revision la Report Date: June 2009

16. DPC-NE-1005-PA, "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4 / SIMULATE-3 MOX",

(DPC Proprietary).

Revision 1 Report Date: November 12, 2008

17. BAW-10231P-A, "COPERNIC Fuel Rod Design Computer Code" (Framatome ANP Proprietary)

Revision 1 SER Date: January 14, 2004

18. DPC-NE-1007-PA, "Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement Methodology,"

(Duke and W Proprietary).

Revision 0 SER Date: TBD B-I

Appendix B Proposed Core Operating Limits Report Revisions 2.4 Moderator Temperature Coefficient - MTC (TS 3.1.3) 2.4.1 The Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) Limits are:

The MTC shall be less positive than the upper limits shown in Figure 2. The BOC, ARO, HZP MTC shall be less positive than 0.7E-04 AK/K/°F.

The EOC, ARO, RTP MTC shall be less negative than the -4.3E-04 AK/K/°F lower MTC limit.

2.4.2 The 300 ppm MTC Surveillance Limit is:

The 300 ppm ARO, equilibrium RTP MTC shall be less negative than or equal to

-3.65E-04 AKJK/°F.

2.4.3 The Revised Predicted near-EOC 300 ppm ARO RTP MTC shall be calculated using the procedure contained in DCP-NE-1007-PA.

If the Revised Predicted MTC is less negative than or equal to the 300 ppm SR 3.1.3.2 Surveillance Limit, and all benchmark data contained in the surveillance procedure is satisfied, then an MTC measurement in accordance with SR 3.1.3.2 is not required to be performed.

2.4.4 The 60 PPM MTC Surveillance Limit is:

The 60 PPM ARO, equilibrium RTP MTC shall be less negative than or equal to

-4.125E-04 AK/K/ 0F.

Where, AFD = Axial Flux Difference BOC = Beginning of Cycle (Bumup corresponding to the most positive MTC)

EOC = End of Cycle ARO = All Rods Out HZP = Hot Zero Power RTP = Rated Thermal Power PPM = Parts per million (Boron)

B-2

Appendix C Demonstration Analysis for the Conditional Exemption of the 300 ppm EOC Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurement

1.0 Background

Technical Specification SR 3.1.3.2 requires the measurement of the MTC within 7 EFPD after reaching the equivalent of an equilibrium RTP all rods out (ARO) boron concentration of 300 ppm. DPC-NE-1007-P presents the methodology required to exempt RTP end-of-cycle (EOC) MTC measurement. The methodology requires demonstration that [

J than the COLR EOC 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit. The purpose of this appendix is to present an example calculation of the Revised Predicted MTC, and reactivity and power distribution comparisons for an actual core design. The data presented is representative of the type of data that would be included in plant procedures to determine if the EOC 300 ppm MTC measurement can be exempted.

Data from the Catawba 1 Cycle 18 (C1C18) core design is used to calculate deviations in predicted and measured core reactivity and power distributions and the Revised Predicted MTC in the demonstration analysis.

2.0 Procedure The conditional exemption of the EOC RTP 300 ppm MTC measurement is based on the [

I Reactivity measurements are performed in accordance with the requirements of Technical Specification 3.1.2. Deviations in predicted minus measured RTP all rods out boron concentrations are converted to reactivity by a predicted differential boron worth. Power distribution data is obtained from incore flux maps performed in accordance with the requirements of Technical Specifications 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Incore tilts and measured minus predicted reaction rate errors are calculated from this power distribution data.

The Revised Predicted MTC is calculated using the methodology described in Table 3-5 of DPC-NE-1007-P (Ref. 1) provided all performance criteria are satisfied. If the Revised Predicted MTC is less negative than the COLR EOC 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit, then the EOC RTP 300 ppm MTC measurement is not required. If any of the performance criteria are not satisfied, or if the Revised Predicted MTC is more negative than the COLR EOC 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit, the EOC RTP 300 ppm MTC measurement is required.

C-1

Table 2-1 Criteria for the Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement Parameter Ciei Assembly Power (Measured Normalized Reaction Rate) Not 1 +/- 10%

Measure Incore Quadrant Tilt (Intermediate Power) Note 1 +/- 4%

Measure Incore Quadrant Tilt (Full Power) +/-2%

Core Reactivity Difference +/- 1000 pcm BOC HZP ITC +/-2 pcm/°F Individual Control Bank Worth +/- 15% or +/- 100 pcm Total Control Bank Worth +/- 8 or 10% Note 2

% Difference = (Measured - Predicted)/Predicted

  • 100 Note 1: Applicable for power distribution measurements > 50% rated thermal power and for reaction rates > 1.0. (All acceptance criteria is from Reference 1.)

Note 2: The 'safety evaluations from References 2 and 4 require the total bank worth review criterion be reduced from 10% to 8% to account for the potential propagation of errors in predicted parameters unfavorably influencing measured rod worths.

C-2

3.0 Confirmation of Core Performance Requirements The following predicted and measured cycle-specific data from the C I C18 core design is evaluated against the core performance criteria in Table 2-1:

" Maximum and minimum reaction rates deviations

" Maximum and minimum measured incore quadrant power tilts

  • Full power core reactivity data as a function of burnup
  • BOC ZPPT data (Includes the ARO critical boron concentration, ITC, and bank worths)

Core performance data for the above parameters are contained in Tables 3-1 through 3-4. All predicted data was generated using an NRC-approved CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 core model (Reference 3). [

I Therefore, the Revised Predicted MTC can be calculated using the methodology outlined in Table 3-5 of DPC-NE-1007-P (Ref. 1) 4.0 Revised Predicted MTC Calculation The Revised Predicted MTC calculation is performed in Table 4-1, and the value calculated is less negative than the COLR EOC 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit of -36.50 pcm/°F. Therefore, the EOC RTP 300 ppm MTC measurement is not required in accordance with the methodology described in Reference 1.

5.0 References

1. DPC-NE-1 007-PA, "Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement Methodology"
2. "Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Technique", Revision 1, WCAP-13360-P-A, October 1998
3. DPC-NE-1005-PA, "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX",

Revision 1, November 2008

4. DPC-NE-2012-A, "Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement Using CASMO/SIMULATE", Revision Ga, February 2010 C-3

Table 3-1 C1C18 Power Distribution Core Performance Data Maximum and Minimum Reaction Rates for Reaction Rates > 1.0 Bu"rp Power uMaximm Minimum:, . Accep tance,',

Mp (EFPD) Level(.%) RR% Duff. WHR eria`Satisfied fcml 1802 1 75.51 6.93 -3.68 Yes fcm11803 4 99.85 4.58 -2.71 Yes fcml1804 10 99.86 5.46 -3.08 Yes fcmll813 25 99.90 5.71 -2.95 Yes fcmll814 53 99.83 4.50 -2.75 Yes fcm11815 86 99.89 4.41 -3.26 Yes fcm11816 109 99.82 3.01 -2.57 Yes fcm11817 137 99.83 2.88 -2.31 Yes fcmll818 165 99.85 2.38 -1.74 Yes fcmll819 192 99.84 1.92 -1.68 Yes fcm11820 214 99.91 2.13 -1.58 Yes fcml182t 221 99.86 1.90 -1.89 Yes fcm11822 249 99.79 2.50 -2.11 Yes fcml 1823 277 99.87 1.85 -1.35 Yes fcm11824 304 99.85 1.86 -1.29 Yes fcm11825 331 99.92 2.13 -1.43 Yes fcm 11826 360 99.76 1.96 -1.95 Yes fcml 1827 387 99.86 1.82 -1.53 Yes fcml 1828 400 99.83 2.27 -1.25 Yes

% Difference = (Measured - Predicted)/Predicted

  • 100 Acceptance Criteria: Assembly Power (Measured Normalized Reaction Rate) +/- 10%

Data Source: [Insertplantprocedure]

C-4

Table 3-2 C1C18 Power Distribution Core Performance Data Measured Incore Maximum and Minimum Quadrant Power Tilts Integrated Integrated Burnup Power Maximum Minimum Acceptance Map (EFPD) Level (%) Quadrant Tilt Quadrant Tilt Criteria Satisfied fcml1802 1 75.51 1.00771 0.99387 Yes fcmll803 4 99.85 1.01016 0.99100 Yes fcmll804 10 99.86 1.01005 0.99266 Yes fcmll813 25 99.90 1.00936 0.99104 Yes fcml 1814 53 99.83 1.00747 0.98923 Yes fcmll815 86 99.89 1.00537 0.99120 Yes fcm11816 109 99.82 1.00510 0.99194 Yes fcmll817 137 99.83 1.00376 0.99294 Yes fcmll818 165 99.85 1.00238 0.99493 Yes fcmll819 192 99.84 1.00264 0.99472 Yes fcm11820 214 99.91 1.00285 0.99512 Yes fcml1821 221 99.86 1.00400 0.99405 Yes fcm11822 249 99.79 1.00319 0.99388 Yes fcm11823 277 99.87 1.00253 0.99473 Yes fcml1824 304 99.85 1.00308 0.99529 Yes fcml 1825 331 99.92 1.00324 0.99551 Yes fcm 11826 360 99.76 1.00439 0.99477 Yes fcm11827 387 99.86 1.00284 0.99690 Yes fcm11828 400 99.83 1.00217 0.99761 Yes Acceptance Criteria: Measured Incore Quadrant Power Tilt (Intermediate Power) +/- 4% (0.96 - 1.04)

Acceptance Criteria: Measured Incore Quadrant Power Tilt (Full Power) +/- 2% (0.98 - 1.02)

Data Source: [Insertplantprocedure]

C-5

Table 3-3 C1C18 HFP Reactivity Core Performance Data Measured HFP Predicted HFP Burnup ARO Boron ARO Boron Difference M-P Reactivity Acceptance (EFPD) Conc. (ppm) Conc. (ppm) (Meas. - Pred) Diff. (pcm) Criteria Satisfied 4.3 1355 1360 -5 -30 Yes 9.3 1344 1353 -9 -54 Yes 16.3 1338 1349 -11 -67 Yes 23.3 1341 1347 -6 -36 Yes 30.3 1343 1348 -5 -30 Yes 39.2 1353 1350 3 18 Yes 44.2 1349 1351 -2 -12 Yes 72.2 1327 1334 -7 -42 Yes 100.1 1294 1295 -1 -6 Yes 128.1 1229 1238 -9 -55 Yes 156.1 1164 1168 -4 -25 Yes 190.8 1068 1068 0 0 Yes 211.8 1001 1003 -2 -13 Yes 241.7 903 903 0 0 Yes 267.6 816 811 5 33 Yes 295.6 713 709 4 27 Yes 323.5 611 603 8 54 Yes 351.4 503 496 7 48 Yes 379.4 393 388 5 35 Yes Acceptance Criteria: Core Reactivity Difference +/- 1000 pcm Data Source: [ Insertplantprocedure ]

C-6

Table 3-4 C1C18 Zero Power Physics Test Core Performance Data BOC HZP ARO Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Comparison Measured "Predicted" Difference> Accepance C -TC25 Criteria atisfid

-2.82 -2.75 -0.07 Yes Acceptance Criteria: BOC HZP ITC +/- 2 pcm/°F BOC HZP ARO Critical Boron Concentration Comparison Mlea.sur 'd I,,". Predicted %."`: *, i,,Difference .M-P Reatiit

  • Acceptance BoronConc (ppm): Boron Conc. (ppm)P )(M DIP) iL(pcm) Citeria Satisfied 2011 2021 -10 -63 Yes Acceptance Criteria: Core Reactivity Difference +/- 1000 pcm BOC HZP Bank Worth Comparison

,MeasUed Predicted"  %,'

6Differeince' 'Difference Acceptance Baik Worth (pcm) worth (pcm)' (M1-P)6P*O0, (M,-P)'-, Creria Satisfied CA 408.6 467.3 -12.6 -58.7 Yes CB 557.6 517.7 7.7 39.9 Yes CC 886.8 926.8 -4.3 -40.0 Yes CD 639.4 598.4 6.9 41.0 Yes SA 188.5 161.0 17.1 27.5 Yes SB 819.4 825.2 -0.7 -5.8 Yes SC 396.2 353.6 12.0 42.6 Yes SD 390.9 351.6 11.2 39.3 Yes SE 452.3 472.3 -4.2 -20.0 Yes Total 4739.7 4673.9 1.4 65.8 Yes Acceptance Criteria: Individual Control Bank Worth +/- 15% or +/- 100 pcm Acceptance Criteria: Total Control Bank Worth +/- 8.0%

Data Source: [ Insertplantprocedure ]

C-7

Table 4-1 Revised Predicted MTC Calculation Worksheet A.

B.

i. 4 C.

D.

E. Conditional Exemption Determination COLR 300 ppm MTC Surveillance Limit: -36.50 pcm/°F If the Revised Predicted MTC from step D is less negative than the COLR 300 ppm MTC surveillance limit, then the rated thermal EOC MTC Measurement power 300 ppm MTC measurement is not required per Technical is not required Specification SR 3.1.3.2.

Predicted Data Source: [ Insert Appropriate Startup and OperationalReport ]

C-8

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12153A329&oldid=2100004"