ML082120141

Operating Report for Cycle 17 Operation with Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assemblies

ML082120141
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	06/23/2008
From:	Morris J Duke Energy Carolinas
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML082120141 (28)

Text

Duke OkEnergy JAMES R. MORRIS, Duke Energy VICELLCPRESIDENT Carolinas, Catawba Nuclear Station Carolinas 4800 Concord Road / CN01 VP York, SC 29745 803-701-4251 803-701-3221 fax June 23, 2008 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory'Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke)

Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket Number 50-413 Operating Report for Cycle 17 Operation with Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Lead Assemblies

Reference:

Letter from NRC to H.B. Barron, Duke, "Final Safety Evaluation for Duke Topical Report DPC-NE-1005P, "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX"," dated August 20, 2004 The reference letter constituted the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) associated with Duke's use of MOX lead assemblies at Catawba. In Section 1.0 of the SE (item 4), the NRC stipulated that Duke will prepare an operating report for each operating cycle with MOX fuel lead assemblies and for each unit operating with partial MOX fuel cores until the equilibrium cycle is reached. Each operating report will contain comparisons of predicted to measured monthly power distribution maps and monthly boron concentration letdown values. Duke will provide each cycle operating report to the NRC within 60 days of the end of the fuel cycle.

Pursuant to the above requirement, this letter provides the associated report.

This submittal contains information that is proprietary to Duke.

The specific information that is proprietary in Attachment 1 is identified by enclosure in brackets. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Duke requests that this information be withheld from public disclosure. Attachment 2 is a redacted version of the www. duke-energy.co

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 June 23, 2008 report with proprietary information removed. An affidavit is included that attests to the proprietary nature of the information in this submittal.

There are no regulatory commitments contained in this submittal.

Inquiries on this matter should be directed to L.J. Rudy at (803) 701-3084.

Very truly yours, James'-R. Morris LJR/s Attachments

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 June 23, 2008 xc (with attachments):

L.A. Reyes, Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-8931 J.F. Stang, Jr., NRC Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 0-8 G9A Rockville, MD 20852-2738 A.T. Sabisch, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 4 June 23, 2008 xc (with attachments),:

R.D. Hart L.J. Rudy L.A. Keller R.C. Harvey J.L. Eller P.F. Bailey Document Control File 801.01 RGC Date File ELL-EC050 NCMPA-1 NCEMC PMPA SREC

AFFIDAVIT OF James R. Morris i am Vice President of Duke Energy Caroli~nas, LLC (Duke), and as such have the responsibility of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear plant licensing and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of Duke.

2. I am making this affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.390 of the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and in conjunction with Duke's application for withholding which

,accompanies this affidavit.

3. I have knowledge of the criteria used by Duke in designating information as proprietary or confidential.

4. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390, Duke seeks to protect from disclosure specific analytical information contained in the document "Special Operation Report for Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 17 with Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assemblies."

5. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.390(b) (4), the following is furnished for consideration by the NRC in determining whether the

'proprietary information sought to be'protected should be withheld from public disclosure:

(i) The information is of a type that is customarily held in confidence by Duke. This information is proprietary to Duke, and Duke seeks to protect it as such. The information consists of analysis methodology details, analysis results, and supporting data that provide a competitive advantage to Duke.- Duke submits that a rational basis therefore exists for treatment, of this information as proprietary.

(ii) The information was transmitted to the NRC in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR 2.390, it is to be receivedin confidence by the NRC.

(iii) The information sought to be withheld is not available from public sources to the best of Duke's knowledge and belief.

(iv) Public disclosure of the proprietary information Duke seeks to protect is likely to cause substantial harm to Duke's competitive position within the meaning 'of 10 CFR 2.390(b) (4) (v) . The proprietary information has substantial commercial value to Duke.

For example:

(a) Duke uses this information to reduce vendor and consultant expenses associated with supporting the operation and licensing of its nuclear power plants.

(b) Duke could sell the information to nuclear utilities, vendors, and consultiants for the purpose of supporting the operation and licensing -of other nuclear power plants.

(c) The subject information could only be duplicated by competitors at similar expense to that incurred by Duke.

(d) Public disclosure of this information is likely to cause harm to Duke because it would allow competitors in the nuclear industry to benefit from the results of a significant development program without requiring a commensurate expense or allowing Duke to recoup a portion of its expenditures or benefit from the sale of the information.

For all of the reasons discussed above, Duke requests that this proprietary information be withheld from public disclosure in its entirety.

I affirm that I, James R. Morris, am the person who subscribed my name to the foregoing, and that all of the matters and facts herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

janj/s R. Morris, Vice President Sworn to and subscribed before me this A-3 day of JQ -e , 2008.

Witness my hand and official seal.

NotaryPublic My commission expires: 7....

SEAL

Attachment 2 Non-Proprietary Version of Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 17 Operating Report

Special Operation Report for Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 17 with Mixed Oxide Fuel Lead Assemblies Introduction Duke utilized the core design methodology defined in reference 1 for Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 17 (C1C17) which contains four mixed oxide (MOX) fuel lead assemblies. In reference 2 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) transmitted the safety evaluation which documented NRC approval of reference 1. That safety evaluation identified Duke commitments to submit a startup report and an operation report for each fuel cycle containing MOX fuel.

The startup report identified in reference 3 compares predicted to measured data from zero power physics tests and power distribution maps taken during initial power escalation of C1C17. The startup report also describes the core arrangement, fuel assembly batch characteristics, burnable poison loading, control rod locations, incore detector locations, and MOX fuel assembly placement.

Theoperation report to follow compares measured to predicted data from monthly power distribution maps and soluble boron concentration letdown. MOX fuel lead assemblies are located in core locations C-08, H-03, H-1 3, and N-08. All 4 MOX lead assemblies are located in instrumented core locations.

Flux Maps Flux maps taken after the initial power escalation are tabulated below. All maps were taken at 100 %FP with steady state core conditions. Figures 1 through 18 compare predicted and measured assembly average relative power factors. All acceptance criteria were met for all assemblies for each flux map taken.

Flux Map EFPD %FP FCM/1/17/004 11 100 FCM/1/17/013 31 100 FCM/1/17/014 57 100 FCM/1/17/015 85 100 FCM/1/17/016 113 100 FCM/1/17/017 141 100 FCM/1/17/018 169 100 FCM/1/17/019 197 100 FCM/1/17/020 225 100 FCM/1/17/021 246 100 FCM/1/17/022 281 100 FCM/1/17/023 309 100 FCM/1/17/024 337 100 FCM/1/17/025 365 100 FCM/1/17/026 393 100 FCM/1/17/027 421 100 FCM/1/17/028 449 100 FCM/1/17/029 477 100

Soluble Boron Letdown A comparison of measured and predicted reactivity letdown is performed at approximately 30 EFPD intervals throughout the cycle depletion. Each measured boron concentration is normalized to hot full power, equilibrium xenon and samarium, a reference hot moderator temperature, all control rods out of core, and a reference boron-10 content in the soluble boron. The table below summarizes soluble boron letdown measurements and compares each to the predicted value. The acceptance criterion of 50 PPMB is easily achieved for all measurements.

Cycle Exposure Measured Predicted Difference EFPD PPMB PPMB PPMB 4 -2 15 -19 22 -17 29 -21 36 .- 11 43 -15 50 -12 78 -7 104 -9 132 0 160 -5 188 -5 216 1 244 -6 272 -5 300 -6 328 -2 351 4 384 -1 412 3 440 2 469 2 Conclusion Inclusion of four MOX fuel lead assemblies was accomplished without significant perturbation to the normal low enriched uranium fuel management techniques. Flux map power distribution measurements compared well with prediction. The MOX fuel lead assemblies operated at power levels that are representative of uranium oxide fuel, but were never the highest power assembly in the core.

References

1. DPC-NE-1005-P-A, Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4 / SIMULATE-3 MOX, Duke Power Company, August 2004.

2. Letter, Robert E. Martin (USNRC) to H.B. Barron (Duke), Final Safety Evaluation for Duke Topical Report DPC-NE-1005-P, Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/ SIMULATE-3 MOX, August 20, 2004.

3. Letter, James R. Morris (Duke) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 17 Startup Report, February 28, 2007.

Figure 1 FCM/1/171004 BJMJ 12Jan07 11 EFPD 100 %FP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 A

B C T1 r i-i i I D

I Deviation RMS 1.3%

Core Max -4.4% at H-15 MOX Max -4.2% at N-08

Figure 2 FCM/l/17/013 MWJR 01 Feb07 31 EFPD 100 %FP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 If A

B C

D E

F G

K L

M N

p Deviation RMS 1.5%

Core Max, -4.2% at H-15 MOX Max -3.9% at N-08

Figure 3 FCM/1/17/014 MWJS 27Feb07 57 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I

A B

C D

E F

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i G

H J

K L

M N

p R

Deviation RMS - 1.4% ,

Core Max -4.2% at H-15 MOX Max -3.7% at N-08

Figure 4 FCM/1/17/015 MWJT 29Mar07 85 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 f6 A

B C

D E

F G

H J

K L

M N

P V

R Deviation RMS 1.3%

Core Max -4.7% at H-15 MOX Max -4.0% at N-08

Figure 5 FCMI1/17/016 MWJV 26Apr07 113 EFPD 100%FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 f

f A

B C

D E

F G

H K

L N

P R

K Deviation RMS 1.2%

Core Max -4.4% at H-15 MOX Max -3.8% at N-08

Figure 6 FCM/1117/017 MWJB 24May07 141 EFPD 100 %FP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A

J Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max -4.7% at H-15 MOX Max -3.4% at N-08

Figure 7 FCMI1117/018 MWJW 21Jun07 169 EFPD 100 %FP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A

B D

E F

G H

K L

M N

p R

Deviation RMS 1.2%

Core Max -4.2% at H-15 MOX Max -3.7% at N-08

Figure 8 FCM/1/17/019 MWJX 19Jul07 197 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 ý3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 f

A B

C 0

E F

G H

J K

L M1.

N p

R V

Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max -3.9% at H-15 MOX Max -3.3% at N-08

Figure 9 FCM/1/17/020 MWJZ 16Aug07 225 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A

r B

C D

III I I I E

F G

K L

M N

-I

- I - .1 I I-I I-i-i-i-i-i 4-&

- I. .1-I

- - .1 P

J Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max -4.3% at H-15 MOX Max -3.5% at N-08

Figure 10 FCM/1/17/021 MWKB 06Sep07 246 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Deviation RMS 1.1%

Core Max -3.8% at H-15 MOX Max -2.8% at N-08

Figure 11 FCM/1/17/022 MWNS 07Nov07 281 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A (

B D

E F

G H

J K

L M

N P

R Deviation RMS 0.9%

Core Max -3.7/ at B-13 MOX Max -2.7% at N-08

Figure 12 FCM/1/17/023 MWKD 08Nov07 309 EFPD 100 %FP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A

8 C

D E

F G

K L

M N

p J

Deviation RMS 0.9%

Core Max -4.0% at H-15 MOX Max -2.7% at N-08

Figure 13 FCM/I/17/024 DBXD 06Dec07 337 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lf A

B C

F H

J K

N p

11 )

Deviation RMS 0.8%

Core Max -3.2% at H-15 MOX Max -2.3% at N-08

Figure 14 FCM/1/17/025 MWKG 03Jan08 365 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 A

(

B C

D I--. I.-H K

Deviation RMS 0.9%

Core Max -4.3% at H-15 MOX Max -2.0% at N-08

Figure 15 FCM/1/17/026 MWKH 31Jan08 393 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 If A

B C

D E

F G

H J

K L

M N

p J

Deviation RMS 1.0%

Core Max -4.1% at B-13 MOX Max -1.8% at N-08

Figure 16 FCM/1/17/027 MWKC 03Mar08 421 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A (

J Deviation RMS 0.9%

Core Max -4.1%'at N-02 MOX Max -1.5% at H-13

Figure 17 FCM/1/17/028 MWKK 27Mar08 449 EFPD 100 %FP 2 3 4 5" 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A

B C

D E

F G

H K

L M

N p

R Deviation RMS 0.9%

Core Max -4.9% at B-13 MOX Max -1.5% at N-08

Figure 18 FCM/117/029 MWKH 24Apr08 477 EFPD 100 %FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A (

B C

D E

F G

H J

K L

M N

p.

Deviation RMS 0.9%

Core Max -4.5% at L-15 MOX Max -1.2% at H-03