PLA-7910, Submittal of Unit 2 Cycle 21 Fuel Rod Design Report to Support License Amendment Requesting Application of Advanced Framatome Methodologies PLA-7910

Submittal of Unit 2 Cycle 21 Fuel Rod Design Report to Support License Amendment Requesting Application of Advanced Framatome Methodologies PLA-7910

ML20345A170
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	12/10/2020
From:	Cimorelli K Susquehanna, Talen Energy
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20345A169	List: PLA-7910, Submittal of Unit 2 Cycle 21 Fuel Rod Design Report to Support License Amendment Requesting Application of Advanced Framatome Methodologies PLA-7910
References
PLA-7910 ANP-3835NP, Rev 0
Download: ML20345A170 (34)

Text

Enclosure 1 Contains Proprietary Information -

Withhold in Accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 Kevin Cimorelli Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC Site Vice President 769 Salem Boulevard Berwick, PA 18603 Tel. 570.542.3795 Fax 570.542.1504 Kevin.Cimorelli@TalenEnergy.com December 10, 2020 Attn: Document Control Desk 10 CFR 50.90 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SUBMITTAL OF UNIT 2 CYCLE 21 FUEL ROD DESIGN REPORT TO SUPPORT LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUESTING APPLICATION OF ADVANCED FRAMATOME METHODOLOGIES Docket No. 50-387 PLA-7910 and 50-388

Reference:

1) Susquehanna letter to NRC, Proposed Amendment to Licenses NPF-14 and NPF-22: Application of Advanced Framatome Methodologies and TSTF-535 (PLA-7783), dated July 15, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19196A270).

2) Susquehanna letter to NRC, Submittal of Unit 2 Cycle 21 Reload Licensing Documents to Support License Amendment Requesting Application of Advanced Framatome Methodologies (PLA-7861), dated April 9, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20100F921).

3) Susquehanna letter to NRC, Submittal of Unit 2 Cycle 21 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio Report to Support License Amendment Requesting Application of Advanced Framatome Methodologies (PLA-7881),

dated July 30, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20212L631).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (Susquehanna), submitted, in Reference 1, a request for an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating License numbers NPF-14 and NPF-22. The proposed amendment would revise TS 5.6.5.b to allow application of Advanced Framatome Methodologies for determining core operating limits in support of loading Framatome fuel type ATRIUM 11, revise the low pressure safety limit in TS 2.1.1.1 and

Document Control Desk PLA-7910 TS 2.1.1.2, and remove the neutronic methods penalties on Oscillation Power Range Monitor amplitude setpoint and the pin power distribution uncertainty and bundle power correlation coefficient.

In Enclosure 7 to Reference 1, Susquehanna committed to provide certain reload licensing documents related to Unit 2, Cycle 21 (i.e., the first cycle expected to be loaded with ATRlUM 11 fuel), within 15 days of their approval. References 2 and 3 provided the first such reports. This letter provides the next report: Enclosure 1 provides the Unit 2, Cycle 21, Fuel Rod Design Report. The report is submitted for information only to aid in the NRC's review of the license amendment requested in Reference 1.

Information provided in Enclosure 1 is considered proprietary to Framatome. The proprietary information has been denoted therein by brackets. As owners of the proprietary information, Framatome has executed an affidavit for the document which identifies the information as proprietary, is customarily held in confidence, and should be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. Enclosure 2 provides a non-proprietary version of Enclosure 1.

The Framatome affidavit is included as Enclosure 3.

There are no new or revised regulatory commitments contained in this submittal. This submittal satisfies Regulatory Commitment 7783-4 as documented in Enclosure 7 to Reference 1.

Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Ms. Melisa Krick, Manager- Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, at (570) 542-1818.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: l t. U~ J<.. ~

I

Enclosures:

1. Framatome Report ANP-3835P, Revision 0, "ATRlUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21," [Proprietary Information -

Withhold from Public Disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390]

2. Framatome Report ANP-3835NP, Revision 0, "ATRlUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21," (Non-Proprietary Version)

3. Framatome Affidavit for ANP-3835P, Revision 0, "ATRlUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21"

Document Control Desk PLA-7910 Copy: NRC Region I Mr. C. Highley, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Ms. S. Goetz, NRC Project Manager Mr. M. Shields, PA DEP/BRP (w/out Enclosure 1)

Enclosure 2 of PLA-7910 Framatome Report ANP-3835NP, Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 (Non-Proprietary Version)

For Information Only ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- ANP-3835NP Revision 0 Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report December 2020 (c) 2020 Framatome Inc.

0414-12-F04 (Rev. 004, 04/27/2020)

For Information Only ANP-3835NP Revision 0 Copyright © 2020 Framatome Inc.

All Rights Reserved 0414-12-F04 (Rev. 004, 04/27/2020)

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page i Nature of Changes Section(s)

Item or Page(s) Description and Justification 1 All Initial Issue

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page ii Contents Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................... 1-1 2.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 2-1 3.0 FUEL ROD DESIGN EVALUATION .................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Fuel Rod Design ..................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 RODEX4 and Statistical Methodology Summary .................................... 3-2 3.3 Summary of Fuel Rod Design Evaluation ............................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Internal Hydriding ......................................................................... 3-6 3.3.2 Cladding Collapse ........................................................................ 3-6 3.3.3 Overheating of Fuel Pellets .......................................................... 3-6 3.3.4 Stress and Strain Limits ............................................................... 3-7 3.3.5 Fuel Densification and Swelling ................................................... 3-8 3.3.6 Fatigue ......................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.7 Oxidation, Hydriding, and Crud Buildup ....................................... 3-8 3.3.8 Rod Internal Pressure ................................................................ 3-10 3.3.9 Plenum Spring Design (Fuel Assembly Handling)...................... 3-10

4.0 REFERENCES

.................................................................................................. 4-1

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page iii List of Tables Table 2-1 Summary of Fuel Rod Design Evaluation Results........................................ 2-2 Table 3-1 Key Fuel Rod Design Parameters, ATRIUM 11 for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 .................................................................................................. 3-11 Table 3-2 RODEX4 Fuel Rod Results Equilibrium Cycle ........................................... 3-13 Table 3-3 RODEX4 Fuel Rod Results for ATRIUM 11 SUS2-21 Cycle ...................... 3-14 Table 3-4 Cladding and Cladding-End Cap Steady-State Stresses ........................... 3-15 List of Figures Figure 2-1 LHGR Limit (Normal Operation) .................................................................. 2-3

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page iv Nomenclature Acronym Definition 3GFG 3rd generation FUELGUARD AOO anticipated operational occurrences ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers B&PV Boiler and Pressure Vessel BOL beginning of life BWR boiling water reactor CRWE control rod withdrawal error CUF cumulative usage factor EOL end of life FDL fuel design limit ID inside diameter LAR License Amendment Request LHGR linear heat generation rate LTP lower tie plate MWd/kgU megawatt days per kilogram of initial uranium NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S.

OD outside diameter PCI pellet-to-cladding-interaction PLFR part length fuel rod ppm parts per million SRA stress relieved annealed S-N stress amplitude versus number of cycles UTL upper tolerance limit

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Results of the fuel rod thermal-mechanical analyses are presented to demonstrate that the applicable design criteria are satisfied. The analyses are for the Framatome Inc. ATRIUM 11 fuel that will be inserted for operation in Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 as reload batch SUS2-21.

These analyses assume the use of chromia additive in the enriched and naturally enriched urania portions of the fuel. Both the design criteria and the analysis methodology have been approved by the U.S. NRC (NRC).

The analysis results are evaluated according to the generic fuel rod thermal and mechanical design criteria contained in ANF-89-98(P)(A) Revision 1 and Supplement 1 (Reference 1) along with design criteria provided in the RODEX4 fuel rod thermal-mechanical topical report (Reference 2). The cladding external oxidation limit defined by Reference 2 is [

]. Approved methodology for the inclusion of chromia additive in the fuel pellets is also used (Reference 3).

The RODEX4 fuel rod thermal-mechanical analysis code is used to analyze the fuel rod for fuel centerline temperature, cladding strain, rod internal pressure, cladding collapse, cladding fatigue and external oxidation. The code and application methodology are described in the RODEX4 topical report (Reference 2). The cladding steady-state stress and plenum spring design methodology are summarized in Reference 1.

The following sections describe the fuel rod design, design criteria and methodology with reference to the source topical reports. Results from the analyses are summarized for comparison to the design criteria.

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 2-1 2.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS Key results are compared against each design criterion in Table 2-1. Results are presented for the limiting cases. Additional RODEX4 results are given in Section 3.0.

The analyses support a maximum fuel rod discharge exposure of 62 MWd/kgU.

Fuel rod criteria applicable to the design are summarized in Section 3.0. Analyses show the criteria are satisfied when the fuel is operated at or below the LHGR (linear heat generation rate) limit (Fuel Design Limit - FDL) presented in Figure 2-1.

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 2-2 Table 2-1 Summary of Fuel Rod Design Evaluation Results Criteria Description Criteria Result, Margin or Comment Section*

3.2 Fuel Rod Criteria 3.2.1 Internal hydriding [

]

(3.1.1) Cladding collapse [ ]

(3.1.2) Overheating of fuel No fuel melting [ ]

pellets margin to fuel melt > 0. °C 3.2.5 Stress and strain limits (3.1.1) Pellet-cladding [ ]

(3.1.2) interaction 3.2.5.2 Cladding steady-state [

stresses

]

3.3 Fuel System Criteria (3.1.1) Fatigue [ ]

(3.1.1) Oxidation, hydriding, [ ]

and crud buildup (3.1.1) Rod internal pressure [ ]

(3.1.2) 3.3.9 Fuel rod plenum spring Plenum spring to [

(fuel handling)

]

• Numbers in the column refer to paragraph sections in the generic design criteria document, ANF 98(P)(A) Revision 1 and Supplement 1 (Reference 1). A number in parentheses is the paragraph section in the RODEX4 fuel rod topical report (Reference 2).

Margin is defined as (limit - result).

The cladding external oxidation limit is restricted to the reduced value of [ ] based on the NRC review of the RODEX4 first implementation in the U.S.

For Information Only Framatomme Inc. ANP-38 835NP Revission 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal-T chanical Evaluation for Sussquehanna U Mec Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report ge 2-3 Pag

[

]

Figure e 2-1 LHGR Limit (Norm mal Operatio on)

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-1 3.0 FUEL ROD DESIGN EVALUATION Summaries of the design criteria and methodology are provided in this section along with analysis results in comparison to criteria. Both the fuel rod criteria and fuel system criteria as directly related to the fuel rod analyses are covered.

The fuel rod analyses cover normal operating conditions and AOOs (anticipated operational occurrences). The fuel centerline temperature analysis (overheating of fuel) and cladding strain analysis take into account slow transients at rated operating conditions.

Other fuel rod-related topics on overheating of cladding, cladding rupture, fuel rod mechanical fracturing, rod bow, axial irradiation growth, cladding embrittlement, violent expulsion of fuel and fuel ballooning are evaluated as part of the respective fuel assembly structural analysis, thermal hydraulic analyses, or LOCA analyses and are reported elsewhere. The evaluation of fast transients and transients at off-rated conditions also are reported separately from this report.

3.1 Fuel Rod Design The ATRIUM 11 fuel rod is conventional in design configuration and very similar to past designs such as the ATRIUM 10XM and ATRIUM-10 fuel rods.

[

] plenum spring on the upper end of the fuel column assists in maintaining a compact fuel column during shipment and initial reactor operation.

There are two Part-length Fuel Rod (PLFR) designs incorporated in the fuel assembly. The longer is [ ] long, while the shorter is [ ] long. [

].

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-2

[

]

As on previous ATRIUM fuel designs that incorporated the 3rd generation FUELGUARD (3GFG)

Lower Tie Plate (LTP), the PLFRs have a [

]

Table 3-1 lists the main parameters for the fuel rod and components.

3.2 RODEX4 and Statistical Methodology Summary RODEX4 evaluates the thermal-mechanical response of the fuel rod surrounded by coolant.

The fuel rod model considers the fuel column, gap region, cladding, gas plena and the fill gas and released fission gases. The fuel rod is divided into axial and radial regions with conditions computed for each region. The operational conditions are controlled by the [

].

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-3 The heat conduction in the fuel and clad is [

].

Mechanical processes include [

].

As part of the methodology, fuel rod power histories are generated [

].

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-4 Since RODEX4 is a best-estimate code, uncertainties are taken into account by a [

]. Uncertainties taken into account in the analysis are summarized as:

• Power measurement and operational uncertainties - [

].

• Manufacturing uncertainties - [

].

• Model uncertainties - [

].

[

].

3.3 Summary of Fuel Rod Design Evaluation Results from the analyses are listed in Table 3-2 through Table 3-4. Summaries of the methods and codes used in the evaluation are provided in the following paragraphs. The design criteria also are listed along with references to the sections of the design criteria topical reports (References 1 and 2).

The fuel rod thermal and mechanical design criteria are summarized as follows.

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-5

• Internal Hydriding. The fabrication limit [

] to preclude cladding failure caused by internal sources of hydrogen (Section 3.2.1 of Reference 1).

• Cladding Collapse. Clad creep collapse shall be prevented. [

] (Section 3.1.1 of Reference 2).

• Overheating of Fuel Pellets. The fuel pellet centerline temperature during anticipated transients shall remain below the melting temperature (Section 3.1.2 of Reference 2).

• Stress and Strain Limits. [

] during normal operation and during anticipated transients (Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of Reference 2).

Fuel rod cladding steady-state stresses are restricted to satisfy limits derived from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV)

Code (Section 3.2.5.2 of Reference 1).

• Cladding Fatigue. The fatigue cumulative usage factor for clad stresses during normal operation and design cyclic maneuvers shall be below [ ] (Section 3.1.1 of Reference 2).

• Cladding Oxidation, Hydriding and Crud Buildup. Section 3.1.1 of Reference 2 limits the maximum cladding oxidation to less than [ ] to prevent clad corrosion failure. The oxidation limit is further reduced to [

].

• Rod Internal Pressure. The rod internal pressure is limited [

] to ensure that significant outward clad creep does not occur and unfavorable hydride reorientation on cooldown does not occur (Section 3.1.1 of Reference 2).

• Plenum Spring Design (Fuel Handling). The rod plenum spring must maintain a force against the fuel column stack [ ] (Section 3.3.9 of Reference 1).

Cladding collapse, overheating of fuel, cladding transient strain, cladding cyclic fatigue, cladding oxidation, and rod pressure are evaluated [ ]. Cladding stress and the plenum spring are evaluated [ ].

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-6 3.3.1 Internal Hydriding The absorption of hydrogen by the cladding can result in cladding failure due to reduced ductility and formation of hydride platelets. Careful moisture control during fuel fabrication reduces the potential for hydrogen absorption on the inside of the cladding. The fabrication limit [

] is verified by quality control inspection during fuel manufacturing.

3.3.2 Cladding Collapse Creep collapse of the cladding and the subsequent potential for fuel failure is avoided in the design by limiting the gap formation due to fuel densification subsequent to pellet-clad contact.

The size of the axial gaps which may form due to densification following first pellet-clad contact shall be less than [ ].

The evaluation is performed using the RODEX4 code and methodology. RODEX4 takes into account the [

].

Table 3-2 lists the results for an equilibrium cycle. Table 3-3 lists the results for ATRIUM 11 SUS2-21 cycle.

3.3.3 Overheating of Fuel Pellets Fuel failure from the overheating of the fuel pellets is not allowed. The centerline temperature of the fuel pellets must remain below melting during normal operation and AOOs. The melting point of the fuel includes adjustments for [ ]. Framatome establishes an LHGR limit to protect against fuel centerline melting during steady-state operation and during AOOs.

Fuel centerline temperature is evaluated using the RODEX4 code and methodology for both normal operating conditions and AOOs.

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-7 Table 3-2 lists the results for an equilibrium cycle. Table 3-3 lists the results for ATRIUM 11 SUS2-21 cycle.

3.3.4 Stress and Strain Limits 3.3.4.1 Pellet/Cladding Interaction Cladding strain caused by transient-induced deformations of the cladding is calculated using the RODEX4 code and methodology (Reference 2). [

]. The strain limit is 1%.

Table 3-2 lists the results for an equilibrium cycle. Table 3-3 lists the results for ATRIUM 11 SUS2-21 cycle.

3.3.4.2 Cladding Stress Cladding stresses are calculated using solid mechanics elasticity solutions and finite element methods. The stresses are conservatively calculated for the individual loadings and are categorized as follows:

Category Membrane Bending Primary [

]

Secondary [

]

Stresses are calculated at the cladding outer and inner diameter in the three principal directions for both beginning of life (BOL) and end of life (EOL) conditions. At EOL, the stresses due to mechanical bow and contact stress are decreased due to irradiation relaxation. The separate stress components are then combined, and the stress intensities for each category are compared to their respective limits.

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-8 The cladding-to-end cap weld stresses are evaluated for loadings from differential pressure, differential thermal expansion, rod weight, and plenum spring force.

The design limits are derived from the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)

Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code Section III (Reference 4) and the minimum specified material properties.

Table 3-4 lists the results in comparison to the limits for Beginning-of-Life (BOL) Hot conditions and End-of-Life (EOL) at both Hot and Cold conditions.

3.3.5 Fuel Densification and Swelling Fuel densification and swelling are limited by the design criteria for fuel temperature, cladding strain, cladding collapse, and rod internal pressure criteria. Although there are no explicit criteria for fuel densification and swelling, the effect of these phenomena are included in the RODEX4 code and methodology.

3.3.6 Fatigue Fuel rod cladding fatigue is calculated using the RODEX4 code and methodology. [

]. The CUF (cumulative usage factor) is summed for each of the axial regions of the fuel rod using Miners rule. The axial region with the highest CUF is used in the subsequent [

]. The maximum CUF for the cladding must remain below [ ] to satisfy the design criterion. Table 3-2 lists the results for an equilibrium cycle. Table 3-3 lists the results for ATRIUM 11 SUS2-21 cycle.

3.3.7 Oxidation, Hydriding, and Crud Buildup Cladding external oxidation is calculated using the RODEX4 code and methodology. The corrosion model includes an enhancement factor that is derived from poolside measurement data to obtain a fit of the expected oxide thickness. An uncertainty value for the model enhancement factor also is determined from the data. The model uncertainty is included as part of the [ ].

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-9

[

]

[

].

In the event abnormal crud is observed at a plant, a specific analysis is required to address the higher crud level. An abnormal level of crud is defined by a formation that increases the calculated fuel average temperature by 25°C above the design basis calculation. The formation of crud is not calculated within RODEX4. Instead, an upper bound of expected crud based on plant observations is input by the use of the crud heat transfer coefficient. The corrosion model also takes into consideration the effect of the higher thermal resistance from the crud on the corrosion rate. A higher corrosion rate is therefore included as part of the abnormal crud evaluation. A similar specific analysis is required if an abnormal corrosion layer is observed instead of crud.

In the case of the Susquehanna units, no additional crud is taken into account in the calculations because an abnormal crud or corrosion layer (beyond the design basis) has not been observed at the Susquehanna units.

[

].

Currently, [

].

The oxide limit is evaluated such that greater than [

].

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-10 Table 3-2 lists the results for an equilibrium cycle. Table 3-3 lists the results for ATRIUM 11 SUS2-21 cycle.

3.3.8 Rod Internal Pressure Fuel rod internal pressure is calculated using the RODEX4 code and methodology (Reference 2). The maximum rod pressure is calculated under steady-state conditions and also takes into account slow transients. Rod internal pressure is limited to [

]. The expected upper bound of rod pressure [

] is calculated for comparison to the limit.

Table 3-2 lists the results for an equilibrium. Table 3-3 lists the results for ATRIUM 11 SUS2-21 cycle.

3.3.9 Plenum Spring Design (Fuel Assembly Handling)

The plenum spring must maintain a force against the fuel column to prevent [

]. This is accomplished by designing and verifying the spring force in relation to the fuel column weight. The plenum spring is designed such that the [

].

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-11 Table 3-1 Key Fuel Rod Design Parameters, ATRIUM 11 for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21

[

]

• The theoretical density of enriched and naturally enriched UO2-Cr is [ ] g/cm3 while that for UO2-Gd2O3 is [ ] g/cm3.

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-12 Table 3-1 Key Fuel Rod Design Parameters, ATRIUM 11 for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 (contd)

[

]

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-13 Table 3-2 RODEX4 Fuel Rod Results Equilibrium Cycle*

[

]

• Note that the results are provided up to fuel assembly discharge.

Margin is defined as (limit - result).

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-14 Table 3-3 RODEX4 Fuel Rod Results for ATRIUM 11 SUS2-21 Cycle*

[

]

• Note that the results are provided up to fuel assembly discharge.

Margin is defined as (limit - result).

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 3-15 Table 3-4 Cladding and Cladding-End Cap Steady-State Stresses Result Description, Stress Category Criteria BOL BOL EOL Cold Hot Hot Cladding stress Pm (primary membrane stress) [ ]

Pm + Pb (primary membrane + [ ]

bending)

P + Q (primary + secondary) [ ]

Cladding-End Cap stress Pm + Pb [ ]

For Information Only Framatome Inc. ANP-3835NP Revision 0 ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal- Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 Licensing Report Page 4-1

4.0 REFERENCES

1. ANF-89-98(P)(A) Revision 1 and Supplement 1, Generic Mechanical Design Criteria for BWR Fuel Designs, Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation, May 1995.

2. BAW-10247PA Revision 0, Realistic Thermal-Mechanical Fuel Rod Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors, AREVA NP Inc., February 2008.

3. ANP-10340P-A Revision 0. Incorporation of Chromia-Doped Fuel Properties in AREVA Approved Methods, Framatome Inc., May 2018.

4. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 1977.

5. ODonnell, W.J., and B. F. Langer, Fatigue Design Basis for Zircaloy Components, Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 20, 1964.

Enclosure 3 of PLA-7910 Framatome Affidavit for ANP-3835P, Revision 0, ATRIUM 11 Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21

AFFIDAVI T

1. My name is Alan B. Meginnis. I am Manager, Product Licensing, for Framatome Inc. and as such I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.

2. I am familiar with _the criteria applied by Framatome to determine whether certain Framatome information is proprietary. I am familiar with the policies established by Framatome to ensure the proper application of these criteria.

3. I am familiar with the Framatome information contained in the report ANP-3835P, Revision 0, "ATRIUM 11 Fuel rod Thermal-Mechanical Evaluation for Susquehanna Unit 2 Cycle 21 ," dated November 2020 and referred to herein as "Document."

Information contained in this Document has been classified by Framatome as proprietary in accordance with the policies established by Framatome for the control and protection of proprietary and confidential information.

4. This Document contains information of a proprietary and confidential nature and is of the type customarily held in confidence by Framatome and not made available to the public. Based on my experience, I am aware that other companies regard information of the kind contained in this Document as proprietary and confidential.

5. This Document has been made available to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in confidence with the request that the information contained in this Document be withheld from public disclosure. The request for withholding of proprietary information is made in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. The information for which withholding from disclosure is requested qualifies under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4) "Trade secrets and commercial or financial information."

6. The following criteria are customarily applied by Framatome to determine whether information should be classified as proprietary:

(a) The information reveals details of Framatome's research and development plans and programs or their results.

(b) Use of the information by a competitor would permit the competitor to significantly reduce its expenditures, in time or resources, to design , produce, or market a similar product or service.

(c) The information includes test data or analytical techniques concerning a process, methodology, or component, the application of which results in a competitive advantage for Framatome.

(d) The information reveals certain distinguishing aspects of a process, methodology, or component, the exclusive use of which provides a competitive advantage for Framatome in product optimization or marketability.

(e) The information is vital to a competitive advantage held by Framatome, would be helpful to competitors to Framatome, and would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Framatome.

The information in the Document is considered proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 6(b), 6(d) and 6(e) above.

7. In accordance with Framatome's policies governing the protection and control of information, proprietary information contained in this Document have been made available, on a limited basis, to others outside Framatome only as required and under suitable agreement providing for nondisclosure and limited use of the information.

8. Framatome policy requires that proprietary information be kept in a secured file or area and distributed on a need-to-know basis.

9. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: December 1, 2020 Alan Meginnis ---- '