ML12048B071

Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 - Cycle 26 Startup Testing Report

ML12048B071
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	02/16/2012
From:	Gillespie T P Duke Energy Corp
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML12048B071 (31)

Text

,J PDuke COEnergyFebruary 16, 2012 T. PRESTON GILLESPIE, JR.Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy ON01 VP / 7800 Rochester Hwy.Seneca, SC 29672 864-873-44.78 864-873-4208 fax T. Gillespie@duke-energy.com U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention:

Document Control Desk

Subject:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket Number 50-270 Unit 2 Cycle 26 Startup Testing Report Pursuant to the requirements in Section 16.13.9, "Startup Report," from the Selected Licensee Commitments Manual, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC hereby submits to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 2, Cycle 26 (02C26) Startup Testing Report. The premise of the report is to provide the Staff with the satisfactory results from the 02C26 startup tests that incorporates the stations' first 24-month cycle, full core loading of AREVA Mark B-HTP fuel, and first cycle to contain fuel with Gadolinia in batch quantities.

If you have any questions or require additional information,.

please contact Kent Alter, Oconee Regulatory Compliance Group, at (864) 873-3255.This letter and its attachment do not contain NRC commitments.

Sincerely, T. Preston Gillespie, Jr.Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Attachment 2,G www. duke-energy.

com U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 16, 2012 Page 2 cc: (w/attachment)

Mr. John F. Stang, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 8 G9A Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Victor M. McCree, Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mr. Andrew T. Sabisch NRC Senior Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION OCONEE 2 CYCLE 26 (02C26)STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Part 2: Zero Power Physics Test Part 3: Power Escalation Test Prepared by: Nicolas Hernandez Date: February 9, 2012 OCONEE 2 CYCLE 26 Startup Testing Report Table of Contents Part 1: Fueland Core Desgnj Section Page 1.0 Summary 1 Figure 1 02C26 Final Core Load Map 3 Figure 2 Rod Type Axial Profiles with Enrichment Table for Oconee 2 Batch 28 4 Figure 3 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28A 6 Figure 4 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28B 7 Figure 5 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28C 8 Figure 6 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28D 9 Figure 7 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28E 10..Part.. Ze Powe Physics Test.2.0 Introduction and Summary 11 2.1 Approach to Criticality 11 2.2 Pre-Physics Measurements 12 2.3 -Physics Testing 12_________

_A~Part_3:_Power EscalatimTestY):_____

3.0 Introduction and Summary 14 3.1 NSSS Heat Balance/ RCS Flow Verification 14 3.2 Core Power Distribution 15 3.3 Power Imbalance Detector Correlation 15 3.4 All Rods Out Critical Boron Measurement at Power 16 1.0 All-Rods-Out Critical Boron Concentration and Differential Boron Worth 17 Results 2.0 Integral Group Rod Worth Measurements 18 3.0 Reactivity Coefficients 19 4.0 NSSS Heat Balance/ RCS Flow Verification 20 5.0 Radial Peaking Factor Comparison at IMPT 21 5.1 Total Peaking Factor Comparison at IMPT 22 5.2 Radial Peaking Factor Comparison at FPT 23 5.3 Total Peaking Factor Comparison at FPT 24 6.0 Core Power Distribution Data Summary at IMPT and FPT 25 7.0 Core Symmetry Results at LPT 26 8.0 Evaluation of Group 6 Rod Worths Failing to Meet Review Criteria 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design 1.0 Summary The Unit 2 Cycle 26 (02C26) core consists of 177 Mk B-HTP fuel assemblies, each of which is a 15 by 15 array containing 208 fuel rods, 16 guide tubes and one incore instrument guide tube. The fuel consists of dished-end, cylindrical pellets of uranium dioxide. Both the reinserted fuel and fresh fuel are clad in M5 and have M5 guide tubes.The 02C26 fuel assemblies have nominal fuel loading of 490 kg uranium, with minor reductions in batches with Gadolinium content. The fresh fuel is not radially enrichment zoned.The 02C26 core loading for this cycle consists of the following:

32 fresh Mk B-HTP fuel assemblies with 4.33 wt% U-235 (designated Batch 28A).40 fresh Mk B-HTP fuel assemblies with 4.53 wt% U-235 each with various Gadolinia (Gad) loadings and layouts (designated Batches 28B, 28C, 28D, 28E). Description of the Gadolinia assemblies is provided in figures 2 -7.32 reinserted Mk B-HTP fuel assemblies with 3.76 wt% U-235 each containing 16 radially zoned reduced enrichment fuel pins at 3.46 wt% U-235 (designated Batch 27A)36 reinserted Mk B-HTP fuel assemblies with 4.16 wt% U-235 each containing 16 radially zoned reduced enrichment fuel pins at 3.86 wt% U-235 (designated Batch 27B)37 reinserted Mk B-HTP fuel assemblies with 3.33 wt% U-235 each containing 16 radial zoned reduced enrichment fuel pins at 3.03 wt% U-235 (designated Batch 26C)Figure 1 shows the batch loading pattern.All non-Gad pins have 6.05 inch blanket regions (top and bottom) enriched to 2.50 wt%U-235. All Gad pins have 9.9 inch blanket regions (top and bottom) enriched to 2.50 wt%U-235. The core periphery is composed of Batch 27A and 26C assemblies.

All batches of fuel assemblies are distributed throughout the core interior including a Batch 26C fuel assembly that is located in the center of the core. No fuel assemblies or burnable poison rods from the spent fuel pool are being used in 02C26.Cycle 26 will operate in a rods-out, feed and bleed mode. Core reactivity control is supplied mainly by soluble boron and is supplemented by 61 full length Ag-In-Cd control rods, Gadolinia which is incorporated into some of the fuel pellets, & 40 burnable poison rod assemblies (BPRAs). In addition to the full length control rods, eight Inconel (gray) axial shaping rods (APSRs) are provided for additional control of the axial power distribution.

Page 1 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Oconee 2 Cycle 26 is the first 24 Month Cycle at Oconee. It also is the first full core at Oconee made up entirely of Mk-B-HTP fuel and the first Oconee cycle to contain fuel with Gadolinia in batch quantities.

Twenty-four (24) Month Cycle designs allow the three-unit Oconee site to reduce refueling outages by one every other year, resulting in a significant cost savings.Twenty-four (24) Month Cycle designs generally require more feed assemblies than 18 month designs. To design an efficient 24 Month Cycle, Gadolinia integral burnable absorber is necessary to allow feed fuel assemblies to reside in control rod locations.

This allows movement of the feed fuel away from the core periphery and reduces the cycle leakage. To obtain more accurate calculation results for Gadolinia, the CASMO-3 code was upgraded to the newer version CASMO-4. License Amendment Requests (LARs) for the transition to Gadolinia and CASMO-4 were submitted, and both were approved prior to cycle startup.The ability to operate the cycle for its full 24 month design life is dependent upon NRC approval of an LAR currently under their review.Twenty-four (24) Month Cycles with Gadolinia and CASMO-4 code methods are scheduled for all three Oconee Units.Page 2 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Figure 1: 02C26 Final Core Load Map(Lv. 19)Pae 5 of 5 Figure 1 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Final Core Load Map A 101'- 0 G1 X OAM ID 1 14 U A 2C 26C -27A 26C 26 NTOAS 1LD3 NJODW WOWISA UDU M.ODM 71A UIODNA V.ODAiP NJDI 41 G C217 C23t1C291 C2DE C2D7 C23m V~CP 26C 26C 2B 9 27B 2D 9 26C C C2 33 MW C2DA BFIO C2FC H C331 L C3AR AGIF 31 ZTUXC231W C 2FU 313 AOD 3WC3 2 6 273 2a 2 27A 2 2A 2A 277A 273 2_ 223 I6C 34100EtVX XJDI 1GOfl INA 103 N141001L UJ = N6VJDJ9 NI0AL.T-D C 2iD2 ADl! aPL ME B3N ADS C2ZD 26C 21 27B 27B 27B 28A 27A 29A 27 273 273B 23 2C 26C 27B 211 29A 27A 27B 277 21A 27 27B 211 2C Xm Vom U NM OL IAIUIA3 UDIM mt 4D um l41ctn UD34AS NUWWI UEN WAKW I MIK"U " MZ C BM_ _M- C3U C2DU BF, C 2VV B l_ S2 C 34 26 2 27 2L 213 2A A 27A 21A 713 223 26C Gw B2DP C2B BF 2 36 BM 0 C2DH BFA 2V .R -1 22 7A2A 27B29 27A 2A 27A 29A 273B 29 27A 2-D 27A IOO N IC U I NM31 NDR AW W NJOA22 NIODEX N7ALT NX= N = OAL407T57ýJ' 27 2 7B 2A 2A 27 7 9 26C 2 1AC 27A 2 7B 27A AA 2I 7 K C2HBI C2DI RP1 .DA Bn C2DC BF4 D212 BFK 'F 26 28 2 7A: 29A 27B 2T9A7 27A 3 27A A. 27B 20A 27 29D 26 1 1 XA3 4 4D 7 N 10 1110" ! 14 L -- A RP2 A8F B1 C2DT C21MDE D 2U, BF13 C0DLBI C3 23D 22,C 27B 23A -1AB& 27A 29 7 21A 27B 2C 29B 26 O I.. .. CI BF12 C2113 CA44 B. 0171. C33G a 26 2B 7 27A 29 27D2B 7B 3A 27A 27[B 29E IS Nooe: UMM tagbeDhe NIMi NB--HT UDU3MC& VHM VOX em bbGas.WIM.NCD AEB 2UM FIMADC CD iI26C 27B 27 7 1 27A 29 7 27B 27B 2B 6 26 , t S 28 29 27A 22 27A 2 8C 28 Ze 26 2C- 36C -2.50 v21 ,4C RP26 3701 -RF6J -3.00 w2% C4C 2P6A 3711 -3123 -3.50 vti i4C 1P4 1 Note : All ffb asmsnw e N at sHaled. A .otir f as b a 02(25 Page 3 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Figure 2: Rod Type Axial Profiles with Enrichment Table for Oconee 2 Batch 28 Rod Type: 1 Rod Type: 2 Rod Type: 3 143.0 in 143.0 in A 143.0 in 136.95 in 136.95 in A 133.1 in B C D 6.05 in 0 in A Zone Index A B C D E F G Axial Zone Enrichment 2.50 (Blanket)4.33 (Primary)3.46 (Gd Carrier)4.53 (Primary)3.62 (Gd Carrier)3.85 (Gd Carrier)2.72 (Gd Carrier)A 6.05 in 0Oin Gad w/o 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 Page 4 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Figure 2: Rod Type Axial Profiles with Enrichment Table for Oconee 2 Batch 28 (Continued)

Rod Type: 4 Rod Type: 5 Rod Type: 6 143.0 in A 143.0 in A.143.0 in 133.1 in 9.9 in 133.1 in 133.1 in A G E F 9.9 in 9.9 in A A A 0 in Axial Zone Index A B C D E F G 0 in Axial Zone Enrichment 2.50 (Blanket)4.33 (Primary)3.46 (Gd Carrier)4.53 (Primary)3.62 (Gd Carrier)3.85 (Gd Carrier)2.72 (Gd Carrier)0 in Gad w/o 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 Page 5 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Figure 3: Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 @'yi! J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 @E: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 @ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _i i:i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 @ 1 1 @ 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 @1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 § 2:,, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ("BPRA" rod (2.5, 3.0 or 3.5 w/o B 4 C)Note: Rod type numbers are defined in Figure 2.Page 6 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Figure 4: Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28B 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 O NO BPRA Note: Rod type numbers are defined in Figure 2.Page 7 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Figure 5: Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28C 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 :4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3( 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 @ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 II 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 14 , 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 "BPRA" rod (3.5 w/o B 4 C)Note: Rod type numbers are defined in Figure 2.Page 8 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Figure 6: Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 333 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ,, 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 I1 3 3 0 ~ 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 13 3 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q NO BPRA Note: Rod type numbers are defined in Figure 2.Page 9 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 1: Fuel and Core Design Figure 7: Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28E 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 .4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 .4. 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 33 3 3 3 3 3 3_ 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30 3 3 30 3 3 3 3 3 43 3 0 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 -3_ 3 3 3 1 3 3 10 3 3 3 31 3 30 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3... 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 O NO BPRA Note: Rod type numbers are defined in Figure 2.Page 10 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 2: Zero Power Physics Test 2.0 Introduction and Summary The Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Zero Power Physics Test (ZPPT) was conducted from November 16 through 17, 2011, per station procedure PT/0/A/071 1/001 (title?).

This testing was conducted to verify the nuclear parameters upon which the Oconee 2 Cycle 26 core design, safety analysis and Technical Specifications are based.Zero Power Physics Testing measurements were made with reactor power, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure and RCS temperature as required by procedure.

The following nuclear parameters were measured: (a) All-Rods-Out Critical Boron Concentration (Enclosure 1.0)(b) Differential Boron Worth (Enclosure 1.0)(c) Integral Rod Worth for Control Rod Groups 6 and 7 (Enclosure 2.0)(d) Temperature and Moderator Coefficients of Reactivity (Enclosure 3.0)The AREVA Reactivity Measurement and Analysis System (RMAS) was used to record Reactor Coolant System (RCS) temperature, wide range power levels and control rod positions.

Reactivity was calculated by the RMAS computer.On November 17th, 2011 at 23:22, ZPPT was declared complete.

All acceptance criteria were met.2.1 Approach to Criticality The full RCS temperature and pressure necessary for unit startup were achieved and rod withdrawal for the Control Rod Drive Trip Time Test (CRDTTT) began at 21:31 on November 16th, 2011. The CRDTTT was performed at Mode 3, hot standby conditions

(>250°F and > 1% Ak/k shutdown) per station procedure PT/0/A/0300/001.

Each control rod group was individually withdrawn.

The CRDTTT was satisfactorily completed at 00:15 on November 17, 2011.Rod withdrawal for approach to criticality began on November 17, 2011 at 08:07. The estimated critical position was calculated to be Group 7 at 77% per station procedure PT/2/A/ 1103/015.

Criticality was achieved at 13:11 on November 17, 2011 with rod Groups 1-6 at 100% wd (withdrawn), Group 7 at 79.41% wd, Group 8 at 35% wd, an RCS average temperature of 532 'F, and an RCS boron concentration of 1952 ppmB.Page 11 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 2: Zero Power Physics Test 2.2 Pre-Physics Measurements After establishing stable conditions with the reactor critical, reactor power was slowly increased to perform the reactimeter checkout and approach the Point Of Adding sensible Heat (POAH). The POAH was found to be 0.123% FP. From the sensible heat determination, the upper testing limit on the wide range NIs (as indicated on the Control Room Chart Recorder) was established for ZPPT.An on-line OAC reactimeter checkout was performed for both a positive and negative power ramp. The positive ramp involved a reactivity change of +530 jip and the measured doubling times were within 1.34% of the predicted doubling times. The negative ramp involved a reactivity change of about -281 ýtp and the measured doubling times were within 1.20% of the predicted doubling times. The measured doubling times were well within the+/-5% acceptance criteria for the positive ramp and the +/-7% acceptance criteria for the negative ramp.2.3 Physics Testing A. Essentially All Rods Out (EARO) Boron Concentration Measurement The RCS EARO boron concentration was calculated starting from a configuration of Groups 1-6 at 100% wd, Group 7 at 76.7% wd, and APSR Group 8 at 35% wd. The control rods were moved to their essentially all rods out position (Groups 1-6 at 100% wd, Group 7 at 80%, Group 8 at 35% wd) and the associated reactivity change was converted to a boron equivalent in ppmB. The all rods out boron concentration was then calculated and verified to be within procedure acceptance criteria.

Refer to Enclosure 1.0 for more detailed results.B. Reactivity Coefficient Measurements The temperature coefficient measurement was made while maintaining equilibrium boron concentration in the RCS, with control rod Group 7 withdrawn to 76.6% wd and with APSR Group 8 at 35% wd. This test measured the reactivity change associated with a ramp increase in RCS temperature of approximately 3.22 OF and a subsequent decrease of 3.56 OF. The data from the two temperature ramps was averaged using the AT magnitudes as weighting factors. The change in reactivity was divided by the change in RCS temperature to calculate the temperature coefficient.

The measured temperature coefficient was corrected for the difference in RCS average test temperature and reference temperature (532 OF). The moderator temperature coefficient was calculated by subtracting the predicted Doppler coefficient from the measured isothermal temperature coefficient.

The isothermal and moderator temperature coefficient were verified to be within the procedure acceptance criteria.

Refer to Enclosure 3.0 for more detailed results.Page 12 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 2: Zero Power Physics Test C. Control Rod Integral Worths and Differential Boron Worth Measurement The worth of Group 7 from 76.6 to 80% wd was measured during the EARO test. The remaining worth of Group 7 and all of Group 6 was measured by steadily deborating the RCS and compensating for the resulting positive reactivity addition by inserting control rods from 76.6% wd on Group 7 to 0% wd on Group 6 (with no rod overlap).

The reactivity changes resulting from the discrete control rod insertions were summed for each group to obtain the group integral rod worth. Each of the measured groups passed their individual acceptance criteria and total rod worth (group 7's worth and group 6's worth added together) passed its acceptance criteria.

Refer to Enclosure 2.0 for more detailed results.The differential boron worth was calculated by dividing the rod worths of the measured groups inserted between the initial and final boron samples by the corresponding change in RCS boron concentration.

The initial value for the boron concentration was recorded at EARO critical equilibrium conditions.

The final value of boron concentration was , recorded as reactivity approached steady-state.

The measured differential boron worth met procedure acceptance criteria.

Refer to Enclosure 1.0 for more detailed results.Page 13 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 3: Power Escalation Test 3.0 Introduction and Summary The Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Power Escalation Test was performed between November 18, 2011 and November 21, 2011 per station procedure PT/0/A/08 11/001. Testing was performed at-20% Full Power (FP), 40% FP, 50% FP, 73% FP and 100% FP to verify nuclear parameters upon which the Oconee 2 Cycle 26 core design, safety analysis and Technical Specifications are based. The following tests and verifications were performed: (a) Initial Core Symmetry Check at 20% FP (Enclosure 7.0);(b) NSSS Heat Balance at 20% FP, 73% FP, and 100% FP (Enclosure 4.0);(c) Incore Detector Checkout at 11% FP, 40% FP, and 100%FP;(d) Power Imbalance Detector Correlation Slope Measurement at 73% FP;(e) Core Power Distribution at 50% FP, and 100% FP (Enclosures 5.0 through 5.3 and 6.0);(f) All-Rods-Out Critical Boron Concentration at 100% FP (Enclosure 1.0).The unit reached the Low Power Testing (LPT) plateau at 01:14 on November 18, 2011.Testing at the LPT plateau was completed at 00:57 on 11/19/11.

The unit reached the Intermediate Power Testing (IMPT) plateau at 17:28 on 11/19/11.

Testing at the IMPT plateau was completed at 01:00 on 11/20/11.

The unit reached the Full Power Testing (FPT) plateau at 14:06 on 11/20/11.

Full Power Testing (FPT), consisting of Incore Detector Checkout, Core Power Distribution, NSSS Heat Balance, All-Rods-Out Critical Boron, RCS Flow Calculation/Calibration, and update of the RPS RCS Reference Flow was performed at this plateau. FPT was concluded at 12:00 on 11/21/11.

Power Escalation Testing was declared complete at 12:00 on 11/21/11.3.1 NSSS Heat Balance/RCS Flow Verification Off-line (non-OAC) secondary heat balance calculations were performed at 20% FP, 73%FP and 100% FP. An off-line primary heat balance was performed at 100% FP. These tests verified the accuracy of the on-line primary and secondary-side heat balance calculations.

On-line calculations are another term for calculations performed by the OAC (operator aid computer) or plant computer program. The plant on-line computer accuracy was verified by performing an off-line calculation using the same inputs that feed the on-line computer.

The on-line and off-line results were compared for the same period, and verified to agree within 2% FP. This same method was used to verify that RCS flow was Page 14 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 3: Power Escalation Test greater than the required flow per the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).Normalization of the plant computer RCS flow constants (used to calculate flow from the primary delta-P instrumentation) was performed during FPT and the on-line power calculations were then verified to agree within 2% FP. Refer to Enclosure 4.0 for more detailed results.3.2 Initial Core Symmetry Check and Core Power Distribution Initial Core Symmetry Check was conducted at 20%. Core Power Distribution tests were conducted at 50% FP and at 100% FP. These tests verified that reactor power imbalance, quadrant power tilt and radial/total power peaks did not exceed their respective specified limits.Specific checks were made as follows: Incore imbalance was compared to the error adjusted imbalance LOCA limit curve and was verified to be within specified limits (based on Core Operating Limits Report).The maximum positive quadrant power tilt was verified to be less than the error adjusted Core Operating Limits Report limit.As a prerequisite to performing these tests, PT/0/A/0302/006 (Review and Control of Incore Instrumentation Signals) was performed at 11% FP, 40% FP and 100% FP to identify and evaluate erroneous Self Powered Neutron Detector signals.The results of the initial core symmetry check which occurred at 20% FP can be found in Enclosure 7.0. It can be seen quite clearly that all core symmetric location power comparison deviations are less than 8% and therefore no further evaluation was needed.The core power distribution tests measure and compare the predicted values of radial and total peaking factors at 50% FP and 100% FP. All acceptance criteria were satisfied.

Refer to Enclosures 5.0 -5.3 along with Enclosure 6.0 for more detailed results.3.3 Power Imbalance Detector Correlation The Power Imbalance Detector Correlation was performed at 73% FP. The purpose of this test was to measure the excore to incore power imbalance correlation slopes for NI Channels 5, 6, 7, and 8, and to verify these slopes met acceptance criteria.The excore/incore imbalance correlation slope for each NI Channel (5-8) was determined by a least squares fit of excore to incore imbalance indications.

A total of 19 incore Page 15 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Part 3: Power Escalation Test imbalance points which ranged between -9.90% and +4.08% FP were used. All the slopes were verified to meet acceptance criteria.3.4 All Rods Out Critical Boron Measurement at Power The All Rods Out Critical Boron at Power measurement was made at 100% FP, and the difference between measured and predicted reactivity (in terms of ppmB) was verified to be acceptable.

Refer to Enclosure 1.0 for more detailed results.Page 16 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 1.0 ALL-RODS-OUT CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATION AND DIFFERENTIAL BORON WORTH RESULTS Zero Power ARO At-Power ARO Differential Boron Critical Boron Critical Boron Worth Concentration Concentration CONDITIONS Initial Critical 100% FP Initial State: 0 EFPD 1.3 EFPD Gp 7 @ 77% wd Gp 8 @ 35% wd Gp 7 @ 76.7% wd Gp 7 @ 87.7% wd 1952 ppmB Gp 8 @ 35% wd Gp 8 @ 35% wd 1952 ppmB 1444 ppmB Final State:@ EARO Gp 4 @ 100% wd Gp 5 @ 78% wd Gp 8 @ 35% wd 1699 ppmB MEASURED 1977 ppmB 1391 ppmB -0.00669 %Ak/k ppmB VALUE @ ARO PREDICTED 1974 ppmB 1398 ppmB -0.00665 %Ak/k ppmB VALUE @ ARO DEVIATION

-3 ppmB -7 ppmB -0.67%*ACCEPTANCE_

+15% dev. from CRITERIA Predicted

+50 ppmB Predicted

+/-50 ppmB predicted* (Predicted

-Measured)

• 100 Measured Page 17 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 2.0 INTEGRAL GROUP ROD WORTH MEASUREMENTS PARAMETER MEASURED PREDICTED VALUE VALUE DEVIATION*

ACCEPTANCE

(%Ak/k) (%Ak/k) (%) CRITERION Gp 7 -0.9140 -0.8930 -2.3 + 15% Deviation Integral Worth Gp6 -0.8223 -0.9140 +11.1 + 15% Deviation Integral Worth Gp6&7 -1.7364 -1.8070 +4.1 + 10% Deviation Integral Worth% Dev. = Predicted

-Measured

• 100 Measured Page 18 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure

3.0 REACTIVITY

COEFFICIENTS PARAMETER CONDITIONS MEASURED PREDICTED DEVIATION ACCEPTANCE VALUE VALUE (Meas-Pred)

CRITERIA Hot Zero Power Tave=534.1 F -0.15373 E-4 Ak -0.16140 E-4 Ak +0.00767 E-4 Ak Measured -Predicted

=Temperature Gp 7 @ 76.6% wd k OF k OF k OF +0.2E-4 Ak Coefficient Gp 8 @ 35% wd k OF (ARO) 1952 ppmB Hot Zero Power Tae=534.1 F +0.01090 E-4 Ak +0.00323 E-4 Ak +0.00767 E-4 Ak Measured -Predicted

=Moderator Gp 7 @ 76.6% wd k OF k OF k OF +0.2E-4 Ak Temperature Gp 8 @ 35% wd k OF Coefficient 1952 ppmB (ARO) and Measured <+0.5E-4 Ak k OF Page 19 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 4.0 NSSS HEAT BALANCE/RCS FLOW VERIFICATION Test Plant Plant Offline' OfflineI RCS Plateau Computer Computer Calculated Calculated Flow ",2 Online Online Sec. Primary Secondary

(%DF)Primary Power Level Power Level Power Level Power Level (%FP)(%FP)LPT 19.98 20.39 19.96 20.31 113.60 IMPT 72.26 72.92 72.32 72.84 112.85 FPT 99.87 99.97 99.92 99.88 112.42'Calculated by the online plant computer 2Required to be > Core Operating Limit Report RCS flow of 108.5 % Design Flow (DF)Page 20 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 5.0 RADIAL PEAKING FACTORS AT IMPT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 H 1,1,Gp4 2,2 3,4,Gp3 4,10 5,14,Gp7 6,21 7,30,Gp6 8,37 1.01 1.28 1.25 1.30 1.05 1.15 0.96 0.45 0.98 1.24 1.25 1.27 1.04 1.14 0.98 0.45 2.7% 3.4% 0.1% 2.5% 1.3% 0.6% -1.6% -0.4%9,3,Gp3 1.22 1.21 0.7%10,6-8 1.33 1.31 2.2%11 ,Inner,Gpl 1.35 1.34 0.6%12,15+20 1.24 1.21 2.5%13,22+29,Gp5 1.12 1.14-1.1%14,31+36 1.13 1.13-0.1%15,45 0.39 0.39 0.5%K 1.21 1.14 1.13 0.39 2.5% -1.1% -0.1% 0.5%-+ + + 4 Predicted Measured% Dev 16,12,Gp6 1.24 1.18 5.4%17,17+18 1.33 1.29 3.1%18,24+27,Gp8 1.22 1.24-1.4%19,Outer 1.18 1.18 0.0%20,38+44,Gp4 1.07 1.08-1.4%21,46 0.29 0.30-2.9%L-4 4 +22,26,Gp5 1.23 1.26-2.0%23,33+34 1.27 1.27 0.2%24,40+42,Gp2 1.10 1.13-2.0%25,49 0.49 0.50-2.6%M 26,41,Gp7 1.00 1.04-4.0%27,48 0.97 1.02-4.9%28,51 0.27 0.28-2.7%N% Dev. = Predicted

-Measured

• 100 Measured 29,52 0.36 0.39-7.2%0 Core Conditions Power 50 %FP Group 5 100% wd Group 6 1 00%wd Group 7 55% wd Group 8 36% wd Incore Imbalance

-7.83 RCS Boron 1662 ppmB Max 1/8 Core % Deviation is +5.4% at L10 Acceptance criteria:

<+15% of Predicted Min 1/8 Core % Deviation is -7.2% at 013 Acceptance criteria:

>- 15% of Predicted Maximum Peak Deviation is -0.6% at K 1I Acceptance Criteria:

<+5% of Predicted Root Mean Square of Deviations is 2.4% Acceptance Criteria:

<7.5%Page 21 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 5.1 TOTAL PEAKING FACTORS AT IMPT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 H 1,1,Gp4 2,2 3,4,Gp3 4,10 5,14,Gp7 6,21 7,30,Gp6 8,37 1.20 1.56 1.55 1.71 1.58 1.54 1.26 0.58 1.16 1.50 1.58 1.62 1.52 1.54 1.25 0.56 3.6% 3.7% -1.8% 5.3% 3.7% 0.3% 1.0% 3.3%9,3,Gp3 1.48 1.45 2.2%10,6+8 1.66 1.64 1.4%1 1,1nnerGp1 1.74 1.73 0.7%12,15+20 1.65 1.61 2.6%13,22+29,Gp5 1.49 1.49-0.2%14,31+36 1.49 1.49 0.2%15,45 0.51 0.50 1.3%K 1.64 1.73 1.61 1.49 1.49 0.50 1.4% 0.7% 2.6% -0.2% 0.2% 1.3%+ + + +Predicted Measured% Dev 16,12,Gp6 1.56 1.48 5.2%17,17+18 1.71 1.65 3.6%18,24+27,Gp8 1.65 1.68-1.5%19,Outer 1.57 1.55 0.9%20,38+44,Gp4 1.42 1.44-1.4%21,46 0.38 0.38-0.4%L 4 +22,26,Gp5 1.64 1.68-2.6%23,33+34 1.75 1.74 0.9%24,40+42,Gp2 1.51 1.55-2.5%25,49 0.65 0.65-0.1%M 26,41 ,Gp7 1.57 1.61-2.6%27,48 1.41 1.33 6.3%28,51 0.38 0.40-5.5%N% Dev. = Predicted

-Measured

• 100 Measured 29,52 0.52 0.55-5.0%0 Core Conditions Power 50 %FP Group 5 100% wd Group 6 1 00%wd Group 7 55% wd Group 8 36% wd Incore Imbalance

-7.83 RCS Boron 1662 ppmB Max 1 Max 1/8 Core % Deviation is +6.3 % at N13 Acceptance criteria:

<+20% of Predicted Mim 1/8 Core % Deviation is -5.5 % at N14 Acceptance criteria:

>-20% of Predicted Maximum Peak Deviation is -0.9 % at M12 j Acceptance Criteria:

<+7.5% of Predicted Page 22 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 5.2 RADIAL PEAKING FACTORS AT FPT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 H 1,1,Gp4 2,2 3,4,Gp3 4,10 5,14,Gp7 6,21 7,30,Gp6 8,37 0.95 1.20 1.20 1.29 1.18 1.16 0.96 0.46 0.95 1.19 1.22 1.27 1.15 1.16 0.98 0.46 0.3% 1.2% -1.8% 1.9% 2.6% 0.4% -1.5% 0.1%9,3,Gp3 1.15 1.17-1.0%10.6+8 1.27 1.26 0.7%I IInnerGpl 1.31 1.32-0.2%12,15+20 1.24 1.21 2.0%13,22+29,Gp5 1.12 1.14-1.4%14,31+36 1 .11 1.12-0.3%15,45 0.40 0.39 1.7%K 1.26 1.32 1.14 1.12 0.39 0.7% -0.2% -1.4% -0.3% 1.7%+ 4 + + 4 Predicted Measured%Dev 16,12,Gp6 1.19 1.15 4.2%17,17+18 1.28 1.25 2.3%18,24+27,Gp8 1.20 1.23-1.9%19,Outer 1.16 1.16 0.4%20,38+44,Gp4 1.05 1.06-0.7%21,46 0.30 0.30-1.5%L 22,26,Gp5 1.23 1.26-2.6%23,33+34 1.29 1.28 0.5%24,40+42,Gp2 1.12 1.14-1.4%25,49 0.50 0.52-3.0%M 26,41,Gp7 1.15 1.18-2.7%27,48 1.04 1.02 1.9%28,51 0.30 0.30-2.8%N% Dev. = Predicted

-Measured

• 100 Measured 29,52 0.40 0.44-7.9%0 Core Conditions Power 100 %FP Group 5 100% wd Group 6 1 00%wd Group 7 91% wd Group 8 35% wd Incore Imbalance

-5.30 RCS Boron 1444 ppmB Max 1/8 Core % Deviation is +4.2% at L10 Acceptance criteria:

<+15% of Predicted Min 1/8 Core % Deviation is -7.9% at 013 Acceptance criteria:

>-15% of Predicted Maximum Peak Deviation is +0.2% at K 11 Acceptance Criteria:

<+5% of Predicted Root Mean Square of Deviations is 1.9% Acceptance Criteria:

<7.5%Page 23 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 5.3 TOTAL PEAKING FACTORS AT FPT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 H 1,1,Gp4 2,2 3,4,Gp3 4,10 5,14,Gp7 6,21 7,30,Gp6 8,37 1.05 1.33 1.33 1.46 1.35 1.32 1.10 0.52 1.03 1.31 1.38 1.44 1.31 1.33 1.12 0.51 1.9% 1.5% -3.0% 0.9% 2.7% -0.4% -1.3% 1.8%9,3,Gp3 1.28 1.27 0.6%10,6+8 1.41 1.41 0.0%11.1nnerGpi 1.48 1.50-1.2%12,15+20 1.40 1.38 1.8%13,22+29,Gp5 1.28 1.29-0.8%14,31+36 1.29 1.29 0.2%15.45 0.45 0.45 0.9%K 1.41 1.50 1.38 1.29 1.29 0.45 0.0% -1.2% 1.8% -0.8% 0.2% 0.9%+ + +Predicted Measured%Dev 16,12,Gp6 1.33 1.28 3.6%17,17+18 1.45 1.41 2.4%18,24+27,Gp8 1.40 1.45-3.7%19,Outer 1.34 1.33 0.5%20,38+44,Gp4 1.23 1.24-1.1%21,46 0.34 0.34 0.6%L 22,26,Gp5 1.40 1.46-4.2%23,33+34 1.50 1.49 0.3%24,40+42,Gp2 1.30 1.33-2.4%25,49 0.57 0.58-1.8%M 26,41,Gp7 1.35 1.38-2.2%27,48 1.23 1.18 3.9%28,51 0.34 0.35-4.0%N% Dev. = Predicted

-Measured

• 100 Measured 29,52 0.46 0.50 0-7.4%Core Conditions Power 100 %FP Group 5 100% wd Group 6 100%wd Group 7 91% wd Group 8 35% wd Incore Imbalance

-5.30 RCS Boron 1444 ppmB Max 1/8 Core % Deviation is +3.9% at N13 Acceptance criteria:

<+20% of Predicted Min 1/8 Core % Deviation is -7.4% at 013 Acceptance criteria:

>-20% of Predicted Maximum Peak Deviation is +0.3% at M12, Acceptance Criteria:

<+7.5% of Predicted Page 24 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 6.0 CORE POWER DISTRIBUTION DATA

SUMMARY

AT IMPT AND FPT PLATEAUS Power Level 50 100 (% FP)Group 7/8 55/36 91/35 Positions

(% wd)RCS Boron 1662 1444 Concentration (ppmB)Incore Imbalance

-7.83 -5.30 (% FP)Page 25 of 27 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 7.0 Core Symmetry Results at LPT% Deviation=

Highest-Lowest/AVG

• 100%Detector Number Assembly Power Detector Number% Dev 6 8 AVG 5 7 9 11 13 16 19 25 AVG 3.94 3.97 3.96 4.01 3.96 3.93 3.86 3. 91 3. 95 3.89: 3.97 3.94 0.76 3.81 24 27 AVG 23 28 32 35 39 43 47 50 AVG 44 38 AVG 33 34 AVG 42 40 AVG Assembly Power 3. 54 3.57 3.36 3.37 3.25 3.24 3.38 3.33 3.35, 3.37 3.33 3.06 2. 96 3.01 31.4.2 3.51 3.47 3.101 3.05 3.03% Dev 1.40 4.20 15 20 AVG 29 22 AVG 31 36 AVG 17 18 AVG 3.36 3.39 3.21 3.17 3.19 3.19 3.12 3.16 3.76 3.76 3.76 1.48 3.32 2.60 1.32 1.25 2.22 0.00 Page 26 of 27 j Oconee 2 Cycle 26 STARTUP TESTING REPORT Enclosure 8.0 Evaluation of Group 6 Rod Worths Failing to Meet Review Criteria The following analysis was performed by the General Office Nuclear Design personnel (OND)due to the failure to meet the review criteria of the Group 6 rod worth measurement:

During the 02C26 ZPPT, the group 6 rod worth measurement failed to meet the review criteria of + 10%. The acceptance criteria was met. Since the accident analyses for 02C26 apply conservatism to predicted rod worths consistent with the test acceptance criteria of +15%, the failure of the group 6 rod worth measurement to meet the review criteria does not represent a concern with regard to the safety analysis.However, an examination of various items was conducted to ensure that the group 6 rod worth measurement's failure to meet the review criteria was not a result of another problem or issue.OND reviewed the predictions for 02C26 and performed comparisons with recent cycles. There were no indications of problems with the computer models currently in use. There is nothing unusual in the fuel assemblies or assembly types which are present in the group 6 locations as compared to the group 7 locations (note that the group 7 measurements met both review and acceptance criteria).

The 02C26 rod worth measurement deviations were consistent with what has been observed for recent Unit 2 cycles.A review of the data which was collected during the rod worth measurements produced the following observations:

• The 0 1 C27 and 03 C26 flux data from the testing measurements were much tighter and closer to the top of the test band than 02C26. 02C26 group 6 measurements were taken particularly low in the test band.* The 02C26 rod pushes in the lower end of Group 7 and 6 started too soon, closer to the bottom of the test band, especially for Group 6.* The peak differential rod worth for 02C26 shifted downwards from the 40%wd -30%wd range for pre-02C26 to the 30%wd -20%wd range for 02C26.Thus, the deviation in predicted to measured group 6 rod worths for 02C26 appears to be a combination of noise in the measured data and typical overprediction of group 6 worth.Page 27 of 27