ML080660073

Cycle 21 End of Life Moderator Temperature Coefficient Limit Report

ML080660073
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	02/22/2008
From:	Jensen J Indiana Michigan Power Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
AEP:NRC:8132
Download: ML080660073 (19)

Text

Indiana Michigan Power INDIANA Cook Nuclear Plant MICHIGAN One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 POWERO AERcom A unit of American Electric Power February 22, 2008 AEP:NRC:8132 10 CFR 50.4 Docket No.: 50-315 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Stop O-PI-17 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Unit I Cycle 21 End of Life Moderator Temperature Coefficient Limit Report

Reference:

Letter from J. N. Jensen, Indiana Michigan Power Company, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk, "Supplement to License Amendment Request on the Conditional Exemption from Measurement of End of Life Moderator Temperature Coefficient," AEP:NRC:5132-01, dated June 2, 2005.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, the licensee for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), made a commitment in the referenced letter to submit the following information for the first three uses of the WCAP-13749-P-A methodology for each unit at CNP as a condition for approval of the conditional exemption of the most negative end of life moderator temperature coefficient measurement technical specification change:

1. A summary of the plant data used to confirm that the Benchmark Criteria of Table 3-2 of WCAP-13749-P-A, Safety Evaluation Supporting the Conditional Exemption of the Most Negative EOL Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurement, have been met; and,

2. The Most Negative Moderator Temperature Coefficient Limit Report (as found in Appendix D of WCAP- 13749-P-A).

The information is attached. This transmittal is the second of the three submittals for Unit 1. There are no new or revised commitments made in this submittal.

4w'

U. S. Nuclear RegLulatory Commission AEP:NRC:8132 Page 2 Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. James M. Petro, Jr., Regulatory Affairs Manager, at (269) 466-2491.

Sincerely, Joseph N. Jensen Site Support Services Vice President RSP/rdw Attachments:

1. Plant Data Used to Confirm Benchmark Requirements

2. Most Negative End of Life Moderator Temperature Coefficient Limit Report for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Cycle 21 c: J. L. Caldwell, NRC Region III K. D. Curry, Ft. Wayne AEP, w/o attachments J. T. King, MPSC MDEQ - WHMD/RPMWS NRC Resident Inspector P. S. Tam, NRC Washington, DC

Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:8132 PLANT DATA USED TO CONFIRM BENCHMARK REQUIREMENTS

Attachment I to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 2 Plant Data Used to Confirm Benchmark Requirements To facilitate the review of this information, a list of acronyms used in this attachment is provided.

OF degrees Fahrenheit

% percent BOL beginning of life CNP Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant EOL end of life HZP hot zero power ITC isothermal temperature coefficient M measured MTC moderator temperature coefficient MTU metric tons of uranium MWD megawatt-day NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission pcm percent-millirho P predicted This attachment presents a comparison of the CNP Unit 1 Cycle 21 core characteristics with the requirements for use of the Conditional Exemption of the Most Negative EOL MTC Measurement methodology and presents plant data demonstrating that the Benchmark Criteria presented in WCAP-13749-P-A are met.

The Conditional Exemption of the Most Negative EOL MTC Measurement methodology is described in WCAP-13749-P-A. This report was approved by the NRC with two requirements:

• only PHOENIX/ANC calculation methods are used for the individual plant analyses relevant to determinations for the EOL MTC plant methodology, and

• the predictive correction is reexamined if changes in core fuel designs or continued MTC calculation/measurement data show significant effect on the predictive correction.

The PHOENIX/ANC calculation methods were used for the CNP Unit 1 Cycle 21 core design and relevant analyses. Also, the Unit 1 Cycle 21 core design does not represent a major change in core fuel design and the MTC calculation-to-measurement physics database shows no significant effect on the predictive correction. Therefore, the predictive correction of -3 pcm/°F remains valid for this cycle. The Unit 1 Cycle 21 core meets both of the above requirements.

Attachment I to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 3 The following data tables are provided in support of the benchmark criteria:

• Table I - Benchmark Criteria for Application of the 300 ppm MTC Conditional Exemption Methodology (per WCAP-13749-P-A)

• Table 2 - Flux Map Data: Assembly Powers

• Table 3 - Flux Map Data: Core Tilt Criteria

• Table 4 - Core Reactivity Balance Data

• Table 5 - Low Power Physics Test Data (BOL, HZP): ITC

• Table 6 - Low Power Physics Test Data (BOL, HZP): Total Control Bank Worth

Attachment I to AEP:NRC:8132 .Page 4 Table I Benchmark Criteria for Application of the 300 ppm MTC Conditional Exemption Methodology (per WCAP-13749-P-A)

Parameter Criteria Assembly Power (Measured Normal Reaction Rate) +/-0.1 or 10%

Measured Incore Quadrant Power Tilt (Low Power) +/-4%

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

Core Reactivity Difference - 1000 pcm BOL HZP ITC +/- 2 pcm/°F Individual Control Bank Worth NA*

Total Control Bank Worth +/- 10%

• Not required when "The Spatially Corrected Inverse Count Rate (SCICR) Method for Subcritical Reactivity Measurement" has been performed; see letter from J. D. St. John, Westinghouse Electric Company, to M. L. Bellville, American Electric Power Nuclear Generation Group, "NRC Staff Interpretation of WCAP-16260-P-A," NF-AE-06-72, dated May 30, 2006.

Attachment I to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 5 Table 2 Flux Map Data: Assembly Powers Assembly Power Determination Map Date Power (Maximum Magnitude of Relative Error)

(%) Measured Predicted [Predicted - 10% of Acceptable Power Power Measuredi Predicted 121-01 11/14/06 23.99 0.428 0.397 0.031 0.040 YES 121-02 11/15/06 46.71 1.174 1.109 0.065 0.111 YES 121-03 11/17/06 87.15 0.347 0.330 0.017 0.033 YES 121-04 * * * * * *

• 121-05 * * * * * *

• 121-06 11/18/06 97.43 0.353 0.332 0.021 0.033 YES 121-07 11/20/06 99.93 0.351 0.332 0.019 0.033 YES 121-08 11/22/06 99.95 0.352 0.331 0.021 0.033 YES 121-09 11/27/06 99.90 0.439 0.415 0.024 0.042 YES 121-10 12/11/06 99.85 0.352 0.329 0.023 0.033 YES 121-11 01/15/07 99.84 0.347 0.326 0.021 0.033 YES 121-12 02/12/07 99.87 0.343 0.325 0.018 0.033 YES 121-13 03/12/07 99.84 0.447 0.422 0.025 0.042 YES 121-14 04/16/07 99.91 0.345 0.327 0.018 0.033 YES 121-15 05/14/07 99.86 1.159 1.099 0.060 0.110 YES 121-16 * * * * *

• 121-17 06/11/07 99.89 0.353 0.334 0.019 0.033 YES 121-18 07/16/07 99.85 0.359 0.340 0.019 0.034 YES 121-19 08/13/07 99.95 0.367 0.346 0.021 0.035 YES 121-20 09/10/07 99.87 0.372 0.351 0.021 0.035 YES 121-21 10/15/07 99.89 0.381 0.359 0.022 0.036 YES 121-22 11/12/07 99.86 0.387 0.365 0.022 0.037 YES 121-23 12/10/07 99.88 0.396 0.370 0.026 0.037 YES Acceptance Criteria: +/- 0.1 or 10%.

• Flux maps 121-04, 121-05, and 121-16 were not full core flux maps. As a result, they do not constitute a valid measurement of the indicated parameter.

Attachment I to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 6 Table 3 Flux MaD Data: Core Tilt Criteria Top Half Incore Quadrant Power Tilt Map # Power(%) Maximum Tilt Minimum Tilt Acceptable 121-01 23.99 1.00695 0.99487 Yes 121-02 46.71 1.00437 0.99418 Yes 121-03 87.15 1.00608 0.99498 Yes 121-04 * * *

• 121-05 * * *

• 121-06 97.43 1.00445 0.99551 Yes 121-07 99.93 1.00504 0.99533 Yes 121-08 99.95 1.00402 0.99623 Yes 121-09 99.90 1.00486 0.99507 Yes 121-10 99.85 1.00560 0.99446 Yes 121-11 99.84 1.00345 0.99717 Yes 121-12 99.87 1.00202 0.99631 Yes 121-13 99.84 1.00186 0.99607 Yes 121-14 99.91 1.00158 0.99679 Yes 121-15 99.86 1.00152 0.99752 Yes 121416 * * *

• 121-17 99.89 1.00207 0.99579 Yes 121-18 99.85 1.00302 0.99546 Yes 121-19 99.95 1.00260 0.99579 Yes 121-20 99.87 1.00344 0.99345 Yes 121-21 99.89 1.00324 0.99275 Yes 121-22 99.86 1.00454 0.99531 Yes 121-23 99.88 1.00479 0.99183 Yes Acceptance Criteria: High power maps - maximum power tilt: 1.02; minimum power tilt: 0.98 Low power maps - maximum power tilt: 1.04; minimum power tilt: 0.96 Flux maps 121-04, 121-05, and 121-16 were not full core flux maps. As a result, they do not constitute a valid measurement of the indicated parameter.

to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 7 Table 3 (continued)

Flux Mat Data: Core Tilt Criteria Bottom Half Incore Quadrant Power Tilt Map # Power(,) Maximum Tilt Minimum Tilt Acceptable 121-01 23.99 1.00702 0.99307 Yes 121-02 46.71 1.00484 0.99327 Yes 121-03 87.15 1.00230 0.99608 Yes 121-04 * * *

• 121-05 * * *

• 121-06 97.43 1.00391 0.99654 Yes 121-07 99.93 1.00473 0.99521 Yes 121-08 99.95 1.00595 0.99393 Yes 121-09 99.90 1.00384 0.99463 Yes 121-10 99.85 1.00348 0.99456 Yes 121-11 99.84 1.00405 0.99364 Yes 121-12 99.87 1.00533 0.99565 Yes 121-13 99.84 1.00360 0.99500 Yes 121-14 99.91 1.00393 0.99566 Yes 121-15 99.86 1.00447 0.99690 Yes 121-16 * * *

• 121-17 99.89 1.00364 0.99710 Yes 121-18 99.85 1.00230 0.99826 Yes 121-19 99.95 1.00482 0.99725 Yes 121-20 99.87 1.00491 0.99582 Yes 121-21 99.89 1.00405 0.99581 Yes 121-22 99.86 1.00510 0.99595 Yes 121-23 99.88 1.00506 0.99496 Yes Acceptance Criteria: High power maps - maximum power tilt: 1.02; minimum power tilt: 0.98 Low power maps - maximum power tilt: 1.04; minimum power tilt: 0.96 Flux maps 121-04, 121-05, and 121-16 were not full core flux maps. As a result, they do not constitute a valid measurement of the indicated parameter.

Attachment I to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 8 Table 4 Core Reactivity Balance Data Unit I Cycle 21 Boron Letdown Curve Date Burnup Delta Acceptable (MWD/MTU) Reactivity (pcm)

November 25, 2006 365.66 -151.2 Yes December 2, 2006 629.55 -45.4 Yes December 9, 2006 894.82 98.7 Yes December 12, 2006 1,008.99 11.2 Yes December 18, 2006 1,238.04 77.4 Yes January 16, 2007 2,331.74 40.0 Yes February 13, 2007 3,388.69 83.8 Yes March 13, 2007 4,446.80 114.5 Yes April 17, 2007 5,767.02 70.9 Yes May 15, 2007 6,826.59 64.3 Yes June 12, 2007 7,880.74 106.6 Yes July 17, 2007 9,202.00 47.4 Yes August 14, 2007 10,259.90 17.5 Yes September 11, 2007 11,255.30 122.4 Yes October 16, 2007 12,577.30 121.3 Yes November 13, 2007 13,638.00 68.2 Yes December 11, 2007 14,694.50 17.8 Yes Acceptance Criteria: +/- 1000 pcm

Attachment I to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 9 Table 5 Low Power Physics Test Data (BOL, HZP): ITC Measured ITC Predicted ITC ITC Error (M-P) Acceptable (pcm/°F) (pcm/°F) (pcm/°F)

-2.48 -1.08 -1.41 Yes Acceptance Criteria: ITC error within +/- 2 pcm/°F Table 6 Low Power Physics Test Data (BOL. HZP): Total Control Bank Worth Measured Predicted Delta Worth Worth %Error Worth Worth (M-P) (M-P)xlOO% Acceptable (pcm) (pcm) (pcm) P Total Measured Worth 6955 7033 -78 -1.11% Yes AcceptanceCriteria: Total Measured Worth % error within +/-10%

Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:8132 MOST NEGATIVE END OF LIFE MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT LIMIT REPORT FOR DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1, CYCLE 21 to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 2 Most Negative End of Life Moderator Temperature Coefficient Limit Report for Donald C. Cook Unit 1, Cycle 21 To facilitate the review of this information, a list of acronyms used in this attachment is provided.

OF degrees Fahrenheit A delta

% percent AFD axial flux difference ARO all rods out BOL beginning of life CB Reactor Coolant System boron concentration CNP Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant COLR Core Operating Limits Report EOL end of life HFP hot full power HZP hot zero power ITC isothermal temperature coefficient M measured MTC moderator temperature coefficient MTU metric tons of uranium MWD megawatt-day pcm percent-millirho ppm parts per million P predicted RCS Reactor Coolant System RTP reactor thermal power PURPOSE:

The purpose of this document is to present cycle-specific best estimate data for use in confirming the most negative EOL MTC limit in Technical Specification 3.1.3. This document also summarizes the methodology used for determining if a HFP 300 ppm MTC measurement is required.

PRECAUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS:

The EOL MTC exemption data presented in this document apply to CNP Unit 1 Cycle 21 only and may not be used for other operating cycles.

to AEP:NRC:8 132 Page 3 The following reference is applicable to this document:

WCAP-13749-P-A, "Safety Evaluation Supporting the Conditional Exemption of the Most Negative EOL Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurement," March, 1997.

PROCEDURE:

All core performance benchmark criteria listed in Table 1 must be met for the current operating cycle. These criteria are confirmed from startup physics test results and routine HFP CB and incore flux map surveillances performed during the cycle.

If all core performance benchmark criteria are met, then the Revised Predicted MTC may be calculated per the algorithm given in Table 2. The required cycle-specific data are provided in Tables 3 and 4, and Figure 1. This methodology is also described in the referenced document. If all core performance benchmark criteria are met and the Revised Predicted MTC is less negative than COLR Limit 2.2.2.b, then a measurement is not required.

to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 4 Table 1 Benchmark Criteria for Application of the 300 ppm MTC Conditional Exemption Methodology Parameter Criteria Assembly Power (Measured Normial Reaction Rate) +0.1 or 10%

Measured Incore Quadrant Power Tilt (Low Power) +4%

Measured Incore Quadrant Power Tilt (Full Power) 22%

Core Reactivity Difference +/- 1000 pcrn BOL HZP ITC +/- 2 pcm/°F Individual Control Bank Worth Total Control Bank Worth +/- 10%

Not required when "The Spatially Corrected Inverse Count Rate (SCICR) Method for Subcritical Reactivity Measurement" has been performed; see letter from J. D. St. John, Westinghouse Electric Company, to M. L. Bellville, American Electric Power Nuclear Generation Group, "NRC Staff Interpretation of WCAP-16260-P-A," NF-AE-06-72, dated May 30, 2006.

to AEP:NRC:8132 Page .5 Table 2 Algorithm for Determinin2 the Revised Predicted Near-EOL 300 ppm MTC The Revised PredictedMTC = PredictedMTC + AFD Correction - 3 pcm/°F Where:

Predicted MTC is calculated from Figure 1 at the bumup corresponding to the measurement of 300 ppm at RTP conditions, AFD Correction is the more negative value of:

0 pcm/°F, (AAFD

• AFD Sensitivity)

AAFD is the measured AFD minus the predicted AFD from an incore flux map taken at or near the burnup corresponding to 300 ppm.

AFD Sensitivity = 0.05 pcm / 'F / %AAFD Predictive Correction is -3 pcm/°F, as included in the equation for the Revised Predicted MTC.

to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 6 Table 3 Worksheet for Calculatin2 the Revised Predicted Near-EOL 300 Dom MTC Unit: 1, Cycle 21 Date: 12/26/2007 Time: 6:27 Reference for Cycle-Specific MTC Data:

CNP, Unit I Cycle 21, COLR Part A. Predicted MTC A. 1 Cycle Average Burnup corresponding to the HFP ARO equilibrium xenon CB of 300 ppm. 15258 MWD/MTU A.2 Predicted HFP ARO MTC corresponding to burMup (A. 1) -20.83 pcm/°F Part B. AFD Correction B.1 Burnup of most recent HFP, equilibrium conditions incore flux map 14657.9 MWD/MTU B.2 Measured HFP AFD at burnup (B.1)

Reference incore flux map:

ID: 121-23 Date: 12/10/07 -2.38  % AFD B.3 Predicted HFP AFD at burnup (B.1) -2.23  % AFD B.4 MTC Sensitivity to AFD 0.05 pcm/IF/%AAFD B.5 AFD Correction, more negative of

{ 0 pcm/°F, B.4 *(B.2 - B.3)} -0.01 pcm/°F Part C. Revised Prediction C.1 Revised Prediction (A.2 + B.5 - 3 pcm/0 F) -23.84 pcm/0 F C.2 Surveillance Limit (COLR 2.2.2.b) -38.4 pcm/°F If C.1 is less negative than C.2, then the HFP 300 ppm MTC measurement is not required per Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.1.3.2.

to AEP:NRC:8132 Page 7 Table 4 Data Collection and Calculations Required to Complete the Table 3 Worksheet of the Most Ne2ative Moderator Temperature Coefficient Limit Report Data at the 300 ppm Boron Point:

• RCS Boron at 300 ppm at 6:27 on 12/26/2007

• Burnup at 300 ppm: 15258 MWD/MTU (A.1)

• Predicted MTC: -20.83 pcm/0 F (A.2)

Data from Last Flux Map:

• Flux Map Number: 121-23 (B.2)

• Reactor Power (RP): 99.88% RTP

• Burnup: 14657.9 MWD/MTU (B.1)

• Measured Axial Flux Difference (MAFD): -2.38% (B.2)

MAFD = Measured Axial Offset

• RP / 100%

=-2.385%

• 99.88% /100%

= -2.38%

Predicted Axial Flux Difference (PAFD): -2.23% (B.3)

PAFD = Predicted Axial Offset

• RP / 100%

=-2.23%

• 99.88% / 100%

= -2.23%

A AFD (MAFD-PAFD)

= (-2.38% - -2.23%)

= -0.15%

Determination of the Revised Predicted MTC AFD Sensitivity: 0.05 pcm/°F/ %AAFD (B.4)

AFD Correction: -0.01 pcm/°F (B.5) where: AFD Correction is the more negative of the following:

0 pcm/°F or (AAFD

• AFD Sensitivity) 0 pcm/nF or (-0.15%

• 0.05 pcm/°F/ %AAFD) 0 pcm/°F or -0.01 pcm/0 F

.*.-0.01 pcm/°F Revised Predicted MTC = Predicted MTC + AFD Correction -3 pcm/°F

= -20.83 pcm/°F + -0.01 pcm/°F -3 pcm/°F

= -23.84 pcm/°F (C.1) to AEP:N.RC:8132 Page 8 Figure 1 Unit 1 Cycle 21 Predicted HFP ARO 300 ppm MTC Versus Burnup

-Z .u I r--u q

-2.03E-04 '"

IL

.2 05E-04 j

-2.07E-04 I-*

-

.2.OgE.04 ,

E 0-NS.-

I

-2.11E-04

_______ ______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______

-2.13E-04

-2.15E-04 --I -_L_1~~i_--

130 00 14000 15000 Cycle Bumup (MWDIMTU) 16000 17000 Burnup (MWDIMTU) MTC (Ak/kPF) 13000 -2.01 85E-4 14000 -2.0487E-4 15000 -2.0764E-4 16000 -2.1 035E-4 17000 -2.1293E-4