PDuke COEnergy® Oconee Nuclear Station 7800 Rochester Hwy. … · 2012-07-19 · Subject: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket Number 50-270 Unit 2 Cycle

,J

PDukeCOEnergy®

February 16, 2012

T. PRESTON GILLESPIE, JR.Vice PresidentOconee Nuclear Station

Duke EnergyON01 VP / 7800 Rochester Hwy.Seneca, SC 29672

864-873-44.78864-873-4208 faxT. [email protected]

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D. C. 20555Attention: Document Control Desk

Subject: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLCOconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2Docket Number 50-270Unit 2 Cycle 26 Startup Testing Report

Pursuant to the requirements in Section 16.13.9, "Startup Report," from the SelectedLicensee Commitments Manual, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC hereby submits to theNuclear 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 withthe satisfactory results from the 02C26 startup tests that incorporates the stations' first24-month cycle, full core loading of AREVA Mark B-HTP fuel, and first cycle to containfuel 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 PresidentOconee Nuclear Station

Attachment

2,Gwww. duke-energy. com

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionFebruary 16, 2012Page 2

cc: (w/attachment)

Mr. John F. Stang, Project ManagerOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionMail Stop 8 G9AWashington, D. C. 20555

Mr. Victor M. McCree, Administrator, Region IIU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionMarquis One Tower245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Mr. Andrew T. SabischNRC Senior Resident InspectorOconee 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 HernandezDate: February 9, 2012

OCONEE 2 CYCLE 26Startup Testing Report

Table of Contents

Part 1: Fueland Core Desgnj •,Section Page

1.0 Summary 1Figure 1 02C26 Final Core Load Map 3Figure 2 Rod Type Axial Profiles with Enrichment Table for Oconee 2 Batch 28 4Figure 3 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28A 6Figure 4 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28B 7Figure 5 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28C 8Figure 6 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28D 9Figure 7 Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Rod Type Map, Batch 28E 10

. .Part.. Ze Powe Physics Test.2.0 Introduction and Summary 112.1 Approach to Criticality 112.2 Pre-Physics Measurements 122.3 -Physics Testing 12

_________ •_A~Part_3:_Power EscalatimTestY):_____3.0 Introduction and Summary 143.1 NSSS Heat Balance/ RCS Flow Verification 143.2 Core Power Distribution 153.3 Power Imbalance Detector Correlation 153.4 All Rods Out Critical Boron Measurement at Power 16

1.0 All-Rods-Out Critical Boron Concentration and Differential Boron Worth 17Results

2.0 Integral Group Rod Worth Measurements 183.0 Reactivity Coefficients 194.0 NSSS Heat Balance/ RCS Flow Verification 205.0 Radial Peaking Factor Comparison at IMPT 215.1 Total Peaking Factor Comparison at IMPT 225.2 Radial Peaking Factor Comparison at FPT 235.3 Total Peaking Factor Comparison at FPT 246.0 Core Power Distribution Data Summary at IMPT and FPT 257.0 Core Symmetry Results at LPT 268.0 Evaluation of Group 6 Rod Worths Failing to Meet Review Criteria 27

Oconee 2 Cycle 26STARTUP TESTING REPORT


1.0 Summary

The Unit 2 Cycle 26 (02C26) core consists of 177 Mk B-HTP fuel assemblies, each ofwhich is a 15 by 15 array containing 208 fuel rods, 16 guide tubes and one incoreinstrument guide tube. The fuel consists of dished-end, cylindrical pellets of uraniumdioxide. 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 minorreductions in batches with Gadolinium content. The fresh fuel is not radially enrichmentzoned.

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 ofthe Gadolinia assemblies is provided in figures 2 - 7.

32 reinserted Mk B-HTP fuel assemblies with 3.76 wt% U-235 each containing 16radially 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 16radially 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 16radial 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 offuel assemblies are distributed throughout the core interior including a Batch 26C fuelassembly that is located in the center of the core. No fuel assemblies or burnable poisonrods 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 suppliedmainly 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 rodassemblies (BPRAs). In addition to the full length control rods, eight Inconel (gray) axialshaping rods (APSRs) are provided for additional control of the axial power distribution.

Page 1 of 27



Oconee 2 Cycle 26 is the first 24 Month Cycle at Oconee. It also is the first full core atOconee made up entirely of Mk-B-HTP fuel and the first Oconee cycle to contain fuel withGadolinia in batch quantities. Twenty-four (24) Month Cycle designs allow the three-unitOconee site to reduce refueling outages by one every other year, resulting in a significantcost savings.

Twenty-four (24) Month Cycle designs generally require more feed assemblies than 18month designs. To design an efficient 24 Month Cycle, Gadolinia integral burnable absorberis necessary to allow feed fuel assemblies to reside in control rod locations. This allowsmovement of the feed fuel away from the core periphery and reduces the cycle leakage. Toobtain more accurate calculation results for Gadolinia, the CASMO-3 code was upgraded tothe newer version CASMO-4. License Amendment Requests (LARs) for the transition toGadolinia 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 NRCapproval of an LAR currently under their review.

Twenty-four (24) Month Cycles with Gadolinia and CASMO-4 code methods are scheduledfor all three Oconee Units.

Page 2 of 27

Oconee 2 Cycle 26STARTUP TESTING REPORTPart 1: Fuel and Core Design

Figure 1: 02C26 Final Core Load Map

ON•I-0400-63 (Lv. 19)Pae 5 of 5

Figure 1

Oconee 2 Cycle 26Final Core Load Map

A 101'- 0 G1 X OAM ID 1 14 UA2C 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 M•

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 I6C34100EtVX XJDI 1GOfl INA 103 N141001L UJ = N6VJDJ9 IZSIM• NI0AL.T

-D C 2iD2 ADl! aPL ME B3N ADS C2ZD26C 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 3426 2 27 2L 213 2A A 27A 21A 713 223 26CGw C2I• 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 5•1.4

L -- A RP2 A8F B1 C2DT B.•i C21MDE D 2U, BF13 C0DLBI C323D 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 CDiI26C 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 RP263701 - RF6J - 3.00 w2% C4C 2P6A3711 - 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


Figure 2: Rod Type Axial Profiles with Enrichment Table for Oconee 2 Batch 28Rod Type: 1 Rod Type: 2 Rod Type: 3143.0 in 143.0 in A 143.0 in136.95 in 136.95 in

A

133.1 in

B C D

6.05 in0 in

A

Zone IndexABCDEFG

Axial Zone Enrichment2.50 (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 in0Oin

Gad w/o0.00.04.00.04.03.08.0

Page 4 of 27


Figure 2: Rod Type Axial Profiles with Enrichment Table for Oconee 2 Batch 28 (Continued)Rod Type: 4 Rod Type: 5 Rod Type: 6143.0 in A 143.0 in A.143.0 in

133.1 in

9.9 in

133.1 in 133.1 in

A

GE F

9.9 in 9.9 inA A A

0 inAxial Zone Index

ABCDEFG

0 inAxial 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 inGad w/o

0.00.04.00.04.03.08.0

Page 5 of 27


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 < 2'• 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 K• 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 : i2•: 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 B4C)

Note: Rod type numbers are defined in Figure 2.

Page 6 of 27


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


Page 7 of 27


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 4:•?•4 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 •4 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)


Page 8 of 27


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 •44 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 33 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 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


Page 9 of 27


Part 1: Fuel and Core DesignFigure 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 33 43 3 0 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 -3_ 3 3

3 1 3 3 10 3 3•v 3 3 31 3 30 3 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


Page 10 of 27

Oconee 2 Cycle 26STARTUP TESTING REPORTPart 2: Zero Power Physics Test

2.0 Introduction and Summary

The Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Zero Power Physics Test (ZPPT) was conducted fromNovember 16 through 17, 2011, per station procedure PT/0/A/071 1/001 (title?). Thistesting was conducted to verify the nuclear parameters upon which the Oconee 2 Cycle 26core design, safety analysis and Technical Specifications are based.

Zero Power Physics Testing measurements were made with reactor power, ReactorCoolant System (RCS) pressure and RCS temperature as required by procedure. Thefollowing 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 recordReactor Coolant System (RCS) temperature, wide range power levels and control rodpositions. 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 rodwithdrawal for the Control Rod Drive Trip Time Test (CRDTTT) began at 21:31 onNovember 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 controlrod group was individually withdrawn. The CRDTTT was satisfactorily completed at00:15 on November 17, 2011.

Rod withdrawal for approach to criticality began on November 17, 2011 at 08:07. Theestimated critical position was calculated to be Group 7 at 77% per station procedurePT/2/A/ 1103/015. Criticality was achieved at 13:11 on November 17, 2011 with rodGroups 1-6 at 100% wd (withdrawn), Group 7 at 79.41% wd, Group 8 at 35% wd, an RCSaverage temperature of 532 'F, and an RCS boron concentration of 1952 ppmB.

Page 11 of 27


2.2 Pre-Physics Measurements

After establishing stable conditions with the reactor critical, reactor power was slowlyincreased to perform the reactimeter checkout and approach the Point Of Adding sensibleHeat (POAH). The POAH was found to be 0.123% FP. From the sensible heatdetermination, the upper testing limit on the wide range NIs (as indicated on the ControlRoom Chart Recorder) was established for ZPPT.

An on-line OAC reactimeter checkout was performed for both a positive and negativepower ramp. The positive ramp involved a reactivity change of +530 jip and the measureddoubling times were within 1.34% of the predicted doubling times. The negative rampinvolved a reactivity change of about -281 ýtp and the measured doubling times were within1.20% 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 thenegative 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 ofGroups 1-6 at 100% wd, Group 7 at 76.7% wd, and APSR Group 8 at 35% wd. Thecontrol 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 toa boron equivalent in ppmB. The all rods out boron concentration was then calculated andverified to be within procedure acceptance criteria. Refer to Enclosure 1.0 for more detailedresults.

B. Reactivity Coefficient Measurements

The temperature coefficient measurement was made while maintaining equilibrium boronconcentration in the RCS, with control rod Group 7 withdrawn to 76.6% wd and withAPSR Group 8 at 35% wd. This test measured the reactivity change associated with aramp increase in RCS temperature of approximately 3.22 OF and a subsequent decrease of3.56 OF. The data from the two temperature ramps was averaged using the AT magnitudesas weighting factors. The change in reactivity was divided by the change in RCStemperature to calculate the temperature coefficient. The measured temperature coefficientwas corrected for the difference in RCS average test temperature and reference temperature(532 OF). The moderator temperature coefficient was calculated by subtracting thepredicted Doppler coefficient from the measured isothermal temperature coefficient. Theisothermal and moderator temperature coefficient were verified to be within the procedureacceptance criteria. Refer to Enclosure 3.0 for more detailed results.

Page 12 of 27


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. Theremaining worth of Group 7 and all of Group 6 was measured by steadily deborating theRCS and compensating for the resulting positive reactivity addition by inserting controlrods from 76.6% wd on Group 7 to 0% wd on Group 6 (with no rod overlap). Thereactivity changes resulting from the discrete control rod insertions were summed for eachgroup to obtain the group integral rod worth. Each of the measured groups passed theirindividual acceptance criteria and total rod worth (group 7's worth and group 6's worthadded together) passed its acceptance criteria. Refer to Enclosure 2.0 for more detailedresults.

The differential boron worth was calculated by dividing the rod worths of the measuredgroups inserted between the initial and final boron samples by the corresponding changein RCS boron concentration. The initial value for the boron concentration was recordedat EARO critical equilibrium conditions. The final value of boron concentration was ,recorded as reactivity approached steady-state. The measured differential boron worthmet procedure acceptance criteria. Refer to Enclosure 1.0 for more detailed results.

Page 13 of 27

Oconee 2 Cycle 26STARTUP TESTING REPORTPart 3: Power Escalation Test

3.0 Introduction and Summary

The Oconee 2 Cycle 26 Power Escalation Test was performed between November 18, 2011and 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 nuclearparameters upon which the Oconee 2 Cycle 26 core design, safety analysis and TechnicalSpecifications 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 5.3and 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 theIntermediate Power Testing (IMPT) plateau at 17:28 on 11/19/11. Testing at the IMPTplateau 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 IncoreDetector Checkout, Core Power Distribution, NSSS Heat Balance, All-Rods-Out CriticalBoron, RCS Flow Calculation/Calibration, and update of the RPS RCS Reference Flowwas performed at this plateau. FPT was concluded at 12:00 on 11/21/11. Power EscalationTesting 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. Thesetests verified the accuracy of the on-line primary and secondary-side heat balancecalculations. On-line calculations are another term for calculations performed by the OAC(operator aid computer) or plant computer program. The plant on-line computer accuracywas 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, andverified to agree within 2% FP. This same method was used to verify that RCS flow was

Page 14 of 27


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 theprimary delta-P instrumentation) was performed during FPT and the on-line powercalculations were then verified to agree within 2% FP. Refer to Enclosure 4.0 for moredetailed results.

3.2 Initial Core Symmetry Check and Core Power Distribution

Initial Core Symmetry Check was conducted at 20%. Core Power Distribution tests wereconducted 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 specifiedlimits.

Specific checks were made as follows:

Incore imbalance was compared to the error adjusted imbalance LOCA limit curveand was verified to be within specified limits (based on Core Operating LimitsReport).

The maximum positive quadrant power tilt was verified to be less than the erroradjusted Core Operating Limits Report limit.

As a prerequisite to performing these tests, PT/0/A/0302/006 (Review and Control ofIncore Instrumentation Signals) was performed at 11% FP, 40% FP and 100% FP toidentify and evaluate erroneous Self Powered Neutron Detector signals.

The results of the initial core symmetry check which occurred at 20% FP can be found inEnclosure 7.0. It can be seen quite clearly that all core symmetric location powercomparison 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 andtotal peaking factors at 50% FP and 100% FP. All acceptance criteria were satisfied. Referto 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 thistest was to measure the excore to incore power imbalance correlation slopes for NIChannels 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 determinedby a least squares fit of excore to incore imbalance indications. A total of 19 incore

Page 15 of 27


imbalance points which ranged between -9.90% and +4.08% FP were used. All the slopeswere 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 thedifference between measured and predicted reactivity (in terms of ppmB) was verified to beacceptable. Refer to Enclosure 1.0 for more detailed results.

Page 16 of 27


Enclosure 1.0

ALL-RODS-OUT CRITICAL BORON CONCENTRATIONAND DIFFERENTIAL BORON WORTH RESULTS

Zero Power ARO At-Power ARO Differential BoronCritical Boron Critical Boron WorthConcentration 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 ppmBGp 8 @ 35% wd Gp 8 @ 35% wd

1952 ppmB 1444 ppmB Final State:@ EARO Gp 4 @ 100% wd

Gp 5 @ 78% wdGp 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. fromCRITERIA Predicted +50 ppmB Predicted ±50 ppmB predicted

* (Predicted - Measured) * 100

Measured

Page 17 of 27


Enclosure 2.0

INTEGRAL GROUP ROD WORTH MEASUREMENTS

PARAMETER MEASURED PREDICTEDVALUE VALUE DEVIATION* ACCEPTANCE(%Ak/k) (%Ak/k) (%) CRITERION

Gp 7 -0.9140 -0.8930 -2.3 + 15% DeviationIntegral Worth

Gp6 -0.8223 -0.9140 +11.1 + 15% DeviationIntegral Worth

Gp6&7 -1.7364 -1.8070 +4.1 + 10% DeviationIntegral Worth

% Dev. = Predicted - Measured * 100Measured

Page 18 of 27


Enclosure 3.0

REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS

PARAMETER CONDITIONS MEASURED PREDICTED DEVIATION ACCEPTANCEVALUE 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 OFCoefficient 1952 ppmB

(ARO) andMeasured <+0.5E-4 Ak

k OF

Page 19 of 27


Enclosure 4.0

NSSS HEAT BALANCE/RCS FLOW VERIFICATION

Test Plant Plant Offline' OfflineI RCSPlateau 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 computer2Required to be > Core Operating Limit Report RCS flow of 108.5 % Design Flow (DF)

Page 20 of 27


Enclosure 5.0

RADIAL PEAKING FACTORS AT IMPT8 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 0.450.98 1.24 1.25 1.27 1.04 1.14 0.98 0.452.7% 3.4% 0.1% 2.5% 1.3% 0.6% -1.6% -0.4%

9,3,Gp3

1.221.210.7%

10,6-8

1.331.312.2%

11 ,Inner,Gpl

1.351.34

0.6%

12,15+20

1.241.212.5%

13,22+29,Gp51.121.14

-1.1%

14,31+36

1.131.13

-0.1%

15,45

0.390.390.5%

K

1.21 1.14 1.13 0.392.5% -1.1% -0.1% 0.5%-+ + + 4

PredictedMeasured

% Dev

16,12,Gp6

1.241.185.4%

17,17+18

1.331.293.1%

18,24+27,Gp8

1.221.24

-1.4%

19,Outer

1.181.180.0%

20,38+44,Gp4

1.071.08

-1.4%

21,46

0.290.30

-2.9%L

-4 4 +22,26,Gp5

1.231.26

-2.0%

23,33+34

1.271.270.2%

24,40+42,Gp2

1.101.13

-2.0%

25,49

0.490.50

-2.6%M

26,41,Gp7

1.001.04

-4.0%

27,48

0.971.02

-4.9%

28,51

0.270.28

-2.7%N


29,52

0.360.39

-7.2%0

Core Conditions

Power 50 %FPGroup 5 100% wdGroup 6 1 00%wdGroup 7 55% wdGroup 8 36% wd

Incore Imbalance -7.83RCS Boron 1662 ppmB

Max 1/8 Core % Deviation is +5.4% at L10 Acceptance criteria: <+15% of PredictedMin 1/8 Core % Deviation is -7.2% at 013 Acceptance criteria: >- 15% of PredictedMaximum Peak Deviation is -0.6% at K 1I Acceptance Criteria: <+5% of PredictedRoot Mean Square of Deviations is 2.4% Acceptance Criteria: <7.5%

Page 21 of 27


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 0.581.16 1.50 1.58 1.62 1.52 1.54 1.25 0.563.6% 3.7% -1.8% 5.3% 3.7% 0.3% 1.0% 3.3%

9,3,Gp3

1.481.452.2%

10,6+8

1.661.641.4%

1 1,1nnerGp1

1.741.730.7%

12,15+20

1.651.612.6%

13,22+29,Gp51.491.49

-0.2%

14,31+36

1.491.490.2%

15,45

0.510.501.3%

K

1.64 1.73 1.61 1.49 1.49 0.501.4% 0.7% 2.6% -0.2% 0.2% 1.3%+ + + +

Predicted

Measured% Dev

16,12,Gp6

1.561.485.2%

17,17+18

1.711.653.6%

18,24+27,Gp8

1.651.68

-1.5%

19,Outer

1.571.550.9%

20,38+44,Gp4

1.421.44

-1.4%

21,46

0.380.38

-0.4%L

4 +22,26,Gp5

1.641.68

-2.6%

23,33+34

1.751.740.9%

24,40+42,Gp2

1.511.55

-2.5%

25,49

0.650.65

-0.1%M

26,41 ,Gp7

1.571.61

-2.6%

27,48

1.411.336.3%

28,51

0.380.40

-5.5%N


29,52

0.520.55

-5.0%0

Core Conditions

Power 50 %FPGroup 5 100% wdGroup 6 1 00%wdGroup 7 55% wdGroup 8 36% wd


Max 1

Max 1/8 Core % Deviation is +6.3 % at N13 Acceptance criteria: <+20% of PredictedMim 1/8 Core % Deviation is -5.5 % at N14 Acceptance criteria: >-20% of PredictedMaximum Peak Deviation is -0.9 % at M12 j Acceptance Criteria: <+7.5% of Predicted

Page 22 of 27


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 0.460.95 1.19 1.22 1.27 1.15 1.16 0.98 0.460.3% 1.2% -1.8% 1.9% 2.6% 0.4% -1.5% 0.1%

9,3,Gp3

1.151.17

-1.0%

10.6+8

1.271.260.7%

I IInnerGpl

1.311.32

-0.2%

12,15+20

1.241.212.0%

13,22+29,Gp51.121.14

-1.4%

14,31+36

1 . 11

1.12-0.3%

15,45

0.400.391.7%

K

1.26 1.32 1.14 1.12 0.390.7% -0.2% -1.4% -0.3% 1.7%+ 4 + + 4

PredictedMeasured

%Dev

16,12,Gp6

1.191.154.2%

17,17+18

1.281.252.3%

18,24+27,Gp8

1.201.23

-1.9%

19,Outer

1.161.160.4%

20,38+44,Gp4

1.051.06

-0.7%

21,46

0.300.30

-1.5%L

22,26,Gp5

1.231.26

-2.6%

23,33+34

1.291.280.5%

24,40+42,Gp2

1.121.14

-1.4%

25,49

0.500.52

-3.0%M

26,41,Gp7

1.151.18

-2.7%

27,48

1.041.021.9%

28,51

0.300.30

-2.8%N


29,52

0.400.44

-7.9%0

Core ConditionsPower 100 %FP

Group 5 100% wdGroup 6 1 00%wdGroup 7 91% wdGroup 8 35% wd


Max 1/8 Core % Deviation is +4.2% at L10 Acceptance criteria: <+15% of PredictedMin 1/8 Core % Deviation is -7.9% at 013 Acceptance criteria: >-15% of PredictedMaximum 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


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 0.521.03 1.31 1.38 1.44 1.31 1.33 1.12 0.511.9% 1.5% -3.0% 0.9% 2.7% -0.4% -1.3% 1.8%

9,3,Gp3

1.281.270.6%

10,6+8

1.411.410.0%

11.1nnerGpi

1.481.50

-1.2%

12,15+20

1.401.381.8%

13,22+29,Gp51.281.29

-0.8%

14,31+36

1.291.290.2%

15.45

0.450.450.9%

K

1.41 1.50 1.38 1.29 1.29 0.450.0% -1.2% 1.8% -0.8% 0.2% 0.9%+ + +

PredictedMeasured

%Dev

16,12,Gp6

1.331.283.6%

17,17+18

1.451.412.4%

18,24+27,Gp8

1.401.45

-3.7%

19,Outer

1.341.330.5%

20,38+44,Gp4

1.231.24

-1.1%

21,46

0.340.340.6%

L

22,26,Gp5

1.401.46

-4.2%

23,33+34

1.501.49

0.3%

24,40+42,Gp2

1.301.33

-2.4%

25,49

0.570.58

-1.8%M

26,41,Gp7

1.351.38

-2.2%

27,48

1.231.183.9%

28,51

0.340.35

-4.0%N


29,52

0.46

0.500-7.4%

Core Conditions

Power 100 %FPGroup 5 100% wdGroup 6 100%wdGroup 7 91% wdGroup 8 35% wd


Max 1/8 Core % Deviation is +3.9% at N13 Acceptance criteria: <+20% of PredictedMin 1/8 Core % Deviation is -7.4% at 013 Acceptance criteria: >-20% of PredictedMaximum Peak Deviation is +0.3% at M12, Acceptance Criteria: <+7.5% of Predicted

Page 24 of 27


Enclosure 6.0

CORE POWER DISTRIBUTION DATA SUMMARY AT

IMPT AND FPT PLATEAUS

Power Level 50 100(% FP)

Group 7/8 55/36 91/35Positions (% wd)

RCS Boron 1662 1444Concentration (ppmB)

Incore Imbalance -7.83 -5.30(% FP)

Page 25 of 27


Enclosure 7.0

Core Symmetry Results at LPT

% Deviation= Highest-Lowest/AVG * 100%

DetectorNumber

AssemblyPower

DetectorNumber% Dev

68

AVG

57911

13161925

AVG

3.943.973.96

4.013.96

3.93

3.863. 91

3. 953.89:

3.973.94

0.76

3.81

2427

AVG

2328323539434750

AVG

4438

AVG

3334

AVG

4240

AVG

AssemblyPower

3. 54

3.57

3.36

3.373.253.24

3.38

3.333.35,

3.37

3.33

3.06

2. 96

3.01

31.4.23.513.47

3.101

3.05

3.03

% Dev

1.40

4.20

1520

AVG

2922

AVG

3136

AVG

1718

AVG

3.363.39

3.21

3.173.19

3.193.123.16

3.763.763.76

1.48

3.32

2.60

1.321.25

2.22

0.00

Page 26 of 27

j


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 criteriaof + 10%. The acceptance criteria was met. Since the accident analyses for 02C26 applyconservatism to predicted rod worths consistent with the test acceptance criteria of +15%, thefailure of the group 6 rod worth measurement to meet the review criteria does not represent aconcern with regard to the safety analysis.

However, an examination of various items was conducted to ensure that the group 6 rod worthmeasurement'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. Therewere no indications of problems with the computer models currently in use. There is nothingunusual in the fuel assemblies or assembly types which are present in the group 6 locations ascompared to the group 7 locations (note that the group 7 measurements met both review andacceptance criteria). The 02C26 rod worth measurement deviations were consistent with whathas been observed for recent Unit 2 cycles.

A review of the data which was collected during the rod worth measurements produced thefollowing observations:

* The 0 1 C27 and 03 C26 flux data from the testing measurements were much tighter andcloser to the top of the test band than 02C26. 02C26 group 6 measurements were takenparticularly low in the test band.

* The 02C26 rod pushes in the lower end of Group 7 and 6 started too soon, closer to thebottom of the test band, especially for Group 6.

* The peak differential rod worth for 02C26 shifted downwards from the 40%wd - 30%wdrange 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 acombination of noise in the measured data and typical overprediction of group 6 worth.

Page 27 of 27

Documents

PDuke COEnergy® Oconee Nuclear Station 7800 Rochester Hwy. … · 2012-07-19 · Subject: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket Number 50-270 Unit 2 Cycle