ML17334B053

Proposed Tech Spec Changes Increasing Allowed Peak Pellet Exposure for Advanced Nuclear Fuel Corp Fuel

ML17334B053
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	02/20/1987
From:	INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:
Shared Package
ML17334B052	List: ML17334B051 ML17334B053
References
NUDOCS 8703030051
Download: ML17334B053 (17)

Text

t '@*44 ~ ~ '"+ S ~ ) ~ ~ W, <<, t.k ~ '-J } ~,... ~ a I, q ~, 'I ~ ! ~ ~ w +i'= < il'J '

Ii}" ~ )aw<v ' ~ 'L

~ V 4 s: ~

Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:1018 Proposed Revised Technical Specification Pages 8703030051 870220 PDR P

ADOCK 050003i5 PDR

0 POWER DIS RIBUTION LIMITS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (Continued) where F (Z) - F (Z,g,) at g, for which F (Z,t) is a maximum T(E,)

F (Z) F (E ) at R for which F (Z,t.) is a maximum T(EE)

L F (Z) and F (Z) are functions of core height, Z, and correspond at each F (Z,i)

Z to the rod i for which T(E ) is a maximum at that Z V(Z) is a cycle dependent function and is provided in the Peaking Factor Limit Report. K(Z) is defined in Figure 3,2-2 for Exxon Nuclear Company fuel and in Figure 3.2-3 for Westinghouse fuel. T(E ) is defined in Figures 3.2-4 and 3.2-f. Ep(Z) is an uncertainty factor to account for the reduction in the F (E<) curve due to accumulation of exposure prior to the next flux map.

Westin house Fue Exxon Nuc ea Co ue E

P (Z) 1.0 EP(Z) 1.0 0.0 < E E

< 17.62 Ep(Z) 1.0 EP(Z) 1'0 + [.0040 x F (Z)] 17.62 < E R

< 34.5 E

P (Z) 1.0 Ep(Z) 1 0 + f 0093 x P(Z) j 34.5 < E < 42.2 Ep(Z) - 1.0 + [.0060 x F (Z) j 42.2 < E < 48.0 E

P (Z) 1.0 48.0 < E < 51.0 lD. C. COOK - UNIT 1 3/4 2-7 AMENDMENT NO.

s ~

e ~ P

POWER e

T IBU ION LI I LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION (Continued)

'Sesttu house Fuel ~NC Fua F - 1.0 F P

- 1.0 0.0 g E

~

< 17.62 F

P 1.0 FP 1.0 + [.0015 x W] 17.62 < E < 34.5 R

F P

- 1.0 F 1 0 +

~ [.0033 x W] 34.5 < E < 42.2 Fp 1.0+[.0020 xW] 42.2 < E < 48.0 F

P 1.0 48.0 < E < 51.0 where W is the number of effective full power weeks (rounded up to the next highest integer) since the last full core flux map.

indicated by the relationships.*

• "- x 100% Westinghouse Fuel F (Z,g, ) x V(Z)

APL min over of L Z F (E ) x K(Z) x 100$ Exxon Nuclear Co. Fuel F (Z g ) x V(Z) x Ep(Z) where F (Z, g) is the measured F (Z, g,), including a 3% manufacturing tolerance uncertainty and a 5% m9asurement uncertainty, at the time of target flux determination from a power distribution map using the movable incore detectors. V(Z) is the function given in the Peaking Factor Limit Report. The above limit is not applicable in the following core plane regions.

1. Lower core region 0% to 10% inclusive.

2. Upper core region 90% to 100% inclusive.

• The APDMS may be out of service when surveillance for determining power distribution maps is being performed.

D. C. COOK - UNIT 1 3/4 2-20 AMENDMENT NO.

2.2 2.1 (0, 2. 04) (17.62,2;04) 2.0 ~ -'= ==:(34.5,1.95)

(42.2,1.86)

~ 1.9 L

=

FQ (E R) 0.0 < E R <17.62 (48.0,1.82) 4 CV L 1.8 FQ (E a) = 2.134-.005333 Ep, 17.62 < E g, <34.5 (51.0 ,1.82)

L 1.7 FQ (E a) = 2.353-.01169 E a 34.5 <E g, <42.2 L

1.6 F Q

(E R ) = 2. 151-. 006897 K 42.2 <E K<48.0 F (EI) ~182 48.0 <E K<51.0 1.5 Q (0, 1.0) (17.62, 1. 0) 1.0 (34.5,0.956)

~ ~ '

(42.2,0.912) ~

~ 9

~ ~

= (48 .0,0. 892)

T(E g, ) ~ 1.0 0.0 (ER < 17.62:-- =~ '(51. 0,0. 892',

.8 T(E R ) ~ 1.046-.002614 ER 17.62<E( < 34.5 '

T(E g, ) ~ 1.154-.00573 Eg, 34.5 <Eg, 42.2 T(E g, ) = 1.054-003381 Eg, 42.2 <EE < 48.0

.7 T(E g, ) ~ 0.892 48.0 <Ea < 51.0 . r I

I I l ~ ~

~

~

~

t

.6

~ = ~

0 10 20 30 40 50 Peak Pellet Exposure in i&Q/KG FIGURE 3.2-4 Exposure Dependent FQ Limit, FL (Eg), and Normalized Limit T (ER) as a function of Peak PPllet Burnup for Exxon Nuclear Company Fue)

D. C. COOK - UNIT 1 3/4 2>>23 A,KNDHENT NO.

Attachment 3 to AEP:NRC:1018 ANF Evaluation of LOCA Considerations

~ ~

<<,'

NQV .f ]. 'Stg 1S: 4 s E7 8+ON NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC.

600 100TH AVEffVK>C.POSOXS0777.SSU.EVIlK.WA SS009 (2N> GO~00 November 11, 1986 ENC/AEP-0535 Hr. Rick Bennett, Engineer Nuclear Hater1als 5 Fuel Hanagement Ind1ana 5 Hichigan Electric Company c/o American Electric Power Service Corp.

One Riverside Plaza, 20th Floor Columbus, OH 43216-6631

Dear Hr. 8ennett:

Attached is a recommended change to the D.C. Cook Unit l Technical Specification on F to allow operation of ENC fuel to peak pellet exposures of gl GGD)NT. A dustification of this change is also attached for your use 1n obtaining NRC approval for th1s change.

If you have any questions regarding the attachment, please contact our Hr.

J.S, Holm (telephone 509 375-8142). ~

A'.~

Sincerely H. G. Shaw Contract Administrator Attachment cc: H.P. Alexfch J.H. Cleveland D.H. Malin Y. YanderBurg J.S. Holm (ENC)

/ 'P RARlPAPt PAGB a., ass,, srg Cf gsa0~00sse0stafs0ss

/

f40V li '.86 15'47 E7 P.3

.C. C K Ref: (1) XN-NF-85-115, Rev. ), "D.C. Cook Unit 1 Limiting Break K(Z)

LOCA/ECCS Analysis," November 1986.

(2) XN-NF-85-68(P), Rev. 1, "Donald C. Cook Unit 2 Limiting Break LOCA/ECCS Analysis, lOX Steam Generator Tube Plugging, and K(Z)

Curve," April 1986.

(3) XN-NF-85-117, Supp. 1) "St. Lucie Unit 1 Revised LOCA/ECCS Analysis with 15% Steam Generator Tube Plugging 8reak Spectrum and Exposure Results," December 1985, A LOCA/ECCS analysis Justifying the operation of ENC fuel currently in the D.C. Cook Unit 1 reactor is presented in Reference 1. The analysis in that report supports a peak F~ of 2.04 with an axial dependence as shown in Figure 1. This analysis is applicable to the ENC fuel currently in the D.C. Cook Unit 1 reactor, with a minimum peak rod average exposure greater than 20 GWd/HT and anticipated to be less than 47 GWd/HT.

Justification for an exposure dependent F~ for D.C. Cook Unit 1 is based on an exposure analysis for D.C. Cook Unit 2 (Reference 2). Peak cladding temperatures are dependent upon fuel rod initial stored energy, which for the EXEH/PMR models increases from 0 to about 2 GWd/HTH and then decreases with exposure. The analysis for D.C, Cook Unit 2 with 17x17 fuel geometry demonstrated that over the exposure range of 0 to 41 GMd/HTH, the peak cladding temperature decreased with exposure for exposures beyond the peak stored energy exposure. A similar trend was observed for St, Lucie Unit 1 with 15x15 fuel geometry (Reference 3). Similar results would be expected for D.C. Cook Unit 1 with 15x15 fuel geometry using EXEH/PWR models Based on the trend of decreasing peak cladding temperature with increasing exposure, the analysis in Reference 1 is conservative and supports an F of at least 1.95 for ENC fuel at peak rod average exposures between 20 anII 47 GMd/HTH, A peak rod average exposure of 47 GMd/HTH is equivalent to a peak pellet exposure of 51 GWd/HTH.

The recommended D.C. Cook Unit 1 exposure dependent F Technical Specification Figure 3.2-4 is attached. This figure is the tame as the figure in the current D.C. Cook Unit 1 Technical Specification bu'ith the addition of a constant F limit of 1.82 from 48.0 GWd/HT to 51 GWd/HT peak pellet exposure, For c3)nsistency with the current D.C. Cook Unit 1 Technical Specification, the curve has been maintained in terms of peak pellet burnvp, HAPlFAX NO' PAGE AT'TN.

I.2 (6.0, 1.0) 1.D DO 0 f 2 3 4 5 I 7 8 0,18 ki 12 CORE HEIGHT CFT>

P Figure 1 Iht Channel Factor Normalized Operating Envelope, Fq=2.04,

~O K{Z) Function

2.2 Z.l (0,2.04) (,17.62,2.04) 2.0 (34.5,1.95) 1,9 (42.2,1.86)

Ft (EE) " 2.04 0.0 < E9. <17.6 (48.0,1.82)

Fq (Ea) = 2,134-.005333 Eg, 17.62 < EK <34.5 (51.0,1,82 1.7 F) (ER) ~ 2.353-.01159 55 34.5 < ER <42,2 L =

Fq (Ek) 2.151-.006897 Ea 42.2 <,Eg, <48.0 1.6 L Fq (ER) = 1.82 48,0 <Ea <51.0 1.5 (17.62, 1.0) 1,0 (34,5, .956)

(42.2, .912)

(48.0, .892)

(51.0, .89

.8 T{Ea) - 1.0 0.0 <Eg <17.62 T{Eg,) = 1.046-.002614 Eg, 17.62 <ER <34.5 T(EI() 1,154-,00573 ER 34.5 <EIl, <<42,2

.7 T(Eg) ~ 1,054-.003381 Q, 42.2 <Eg. <48.0 T Eg,) 0.892 48.0 <EE <51.0 10 20 40 50 60 Peak Pellet Exposure in %ID/KG Figure 3.2-4 Limit, FqL (Ea), and Normalized Limit

~

Exposure Oependent Fq T(ER) as a function of Peak Pellet 8urnup for Exxon Nuclear Co.. pany F.e 1 O.C. Cook - Unit 1 3/4 2-23 Amendment No.

RAPIFAX ATTIL 4

AFF IDAV IT*

STATE OF WASHINGTON )

ss.

COUNTY OF BENTON )

I, H. E. Williamson being duly sworn, hereby say and depose:

l. I am Manager, Licensing and Safety Engineering, for Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation ("ANF"), and as such I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.

2. I am familiar with ANF's detailed document control system and policies which govern the protection and control of information.

3. I am familiar with the Letter HGS-87-55(P) entitled "DC Cook Unit I Peak Pellet Burnup Extension" referred to as "Document."

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

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

5. *The Document has been made available to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in confidence, with the request that the information contained in the Document will not be disclosed or divulged.

6. The Document contains information which is vital to a competitive advantage of ANF and would be helpful to competitors of ANF when competing with ANF.

7. The information contained in the Document is considered to be proprietary by ANF because it reveals certain distinguishing aspects of PWR Fuel Design methodology which secure competitive advantage to ANF for fuel design optimization and marketability, and includes information utilized by ANF in its business which affords ANF an opportunity to obtain a competitive advantage over its competitors who do not or may not know or use the information contained in the Document.

8. The disclosure of the proprietary information contained in the Document to a competitor would permit the competitor to reduce its expenditure of money and manpower and to improve its competitive position by giving it extremely valuable insights into PWR Fuel Design methodology and would result in substantial harm to the competitive position of ANF.

9. The Document contains proprietary information which is held in confidence by ANF and is not available in public sources.

10. In accordance with ANF's policies governing the protection and control of information, proprietary information contained in the Document has been made available, on a limited basis, to others outside ANF only as required and under suitable agreement providing for non-disclosure and limited use of the information.

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

12. This Document provides information which reveals PWR Fuel Design methodology developed by ANF over the past several years. ANF has invested thousands of dollars and several man-months of effort in developing the PWR Fuel Design methodology revealed in the Document.

Assuming a competitor had available the same background data and incentives as ANF, the competitor might, at a minimum, develop the I

information for the same expenditure of manpower and money as ANF.

THAT the statements made hereinabove are, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, truthful and complete.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this ~d~day of 198.

NO fARY PUBLIC

y ~

Attachment 5 to AEP:NRC:1018 ANF Evaluation (Non-Proprietary) of Mechanical Design Considerations for Peak Pellet Exposures up to 48.7 Mwd/kg

x* NON-PROPRIETARY x*

HGS-87-055 (P), Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2 DC Cook Unit 1 - Peak Pellet Burnu Extension BBack Bround:

The last reload of ANF (formerly ENC) fuel supplied for the DC Cook Unit 1 reactor is currently in its last cycle of operation. A burnup extension analysis had been performed for this fuel in 1984 in order to support burnup levels of 41.0, 43.7, and 48.0 GWD/MtU respectively for peak assembly, peak rod, and peak pellet. Reactor operating conditions since that time have resulted in higher axial peaking than originally projected. Consequently, the peak pellet burnup is now expected to approach a level of 48.5 GWD/MtU. The peak rod and peak assembly burnup levels are not affected. A review of the original analyses supporting the burnup extension has been conducted in order to determine the consequences of an increase in peak pellet exposure. The review considered an additional increase in peak pellet exposure to 48.7 GWD/MtU to provide margin for. a potential end of cycle coastdown.

Summar. of Burnu Extension Analysis Review:

The original burnup extension analysi,s, reported in XN-NF-84-25, Rev. 0 (Reference 1), addressed the following aspects of design: (1) Steady State Stress, (2) Steady State Strain, (3) Cladding Corrosion and Hydrogen Absorption, (4) Transient Stress and Strain and Cladding Fatigue, (5) Cladding Creep Collapse, (6) Fuel Rod Internal Gas Pressure, (7) Fuel Rod Growth. (8) Spacer Spring Force, and (9) Fuel Assembly Growth. Of these, only Steady State Strain, Corrosion and Hydrogen Absorption, and Fuel Rod Internal Pressure are significantly affected by the axial profile of the fuel rod. The remainder of the items are essentially independent of the peak pellet exposure. The results reported in XN-NF-84-25, Rev. 0 remain valid for these items.

The power history used for. the original burnup extension analysis was based on a conservative best-estimate of the maximum discharge exposure rod, assuming full power operation. In reality the operation of the reactor has been limited to 90 percent of full power. Therefore, the original power. history projection represents a bounding case for. this fuel.

The revised analysis shows that clad strain, corrosion and hydrogen absorption remain within the design limits, and the fuel rod pressure remains below system pressure.

'k r

NON-PROPRIETARY x+

HGS-87-055 (P), Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2 Stead State Strain, Claddin Corrosion and H dro en Absor tion:

The maximum cladding strain, corrosion and hydrogen absorption were determined to occur at the peak axial region in the original burnup extension analysis. Review of this analysis showed the results from the previous analysis to have been taken for. a peak pellet exposure of 48.3 GWD/MtU. Because of the substantial margin for these design criteria a simple extrapolation was used to project the conditions for a peak pellet exposure of 48. 7 GWD/MtU. Extrapolating the results of the original analysis and including an uncertainty of five percent yields the following results:

~Pr'o 'cted Criteria Total Positive Strain, (0)

Maximum Positive Strain Increase, (8)

Cladding Corrosion, (inch)

Hydrogen Absorption, (ppm)

Therefore. the fuel will remain well within the criteria for these items.

Fuel Rod Internal Pressure:

A new RODEX2. (Reference 2) analysis was performed . using the approved methodology for'nternal gas pressure determination and the bounding power, history. The axial peaking factor from the original extension analysis was increased by 2'8 at the maximum axial region in order to bound the 1.5% increase in hurnup from 48.0 to 48.7 GWD/MtU. The results of this analysis showed a peale internal pressure of ( ] psia over the design life of the fuel. This value is well within the criteria limit of the 2250 psia reactor operating pressure as given in XN-NF-84-25, Rev. 0.

Conclusion:

Review of the analysis for the ANF fuel supplied to the DC Cook Unit 1 reactor has shown the fuel capable of meeting a11 design criteria at a peak pellet exposure of 48.7 GWD/MtU. The results presented in the extended burnup report XN-NF-84-25. Rev. 0 with the addition of the results presented in this letter remain valid for the fuel.

Ref: (1) XN-iVF-84-25. Revision 0, Mechanical Desi.n Re ort Su lement.

for DC Cook Unit 1 Extended Burnu Fuel Assemblies, April 1984.

4 (2) XN-NF-81-58 {P)(A) Revision 2. RODEX2 Fuel Rod

~

Thermal-Mechanical Res onse Evaluation Model, March 1984.