ML19259A774
| ML19259A774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1978 |
| From: | Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton, Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901100282 | |
| Download: ML19259A774 (2) | |
Text
..
S5kW poara coupar 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.o. BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 December 29, 1978 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention: Mr. Albert Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Gentlemen:
DOCKET 50-301 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 CYCLE 6 RELOAD The refueling shutdown at the end of Unit 2, Cycle 5 is planned to cormence on March 9,1979, at a cycle burnup of 9,500 +500 MWD /MTUo.
Startup of Cycle 6 is expected to occur on April 6,1979. This letter is to advise you of our plans regarding the Unit 2, Cycle 6 reload core.
The Unit 2, Cycle 6 reload core is designed to operate under current nominal design parameters, Technical Specifications and related bases, and current setpoints such that:
1.
Core characteristics will be less limiting than previously reviewed and accepted; or 2.
For those postulated accidents presented in the Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report (FFDSAR) which could be affected by the reload core, re-evaluation has demonstrated that the results of the postulated events are within allowable limits. Based on the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Report (RSER) for Unit 2, Cycle 6 and discussions with Westinghouse, safety evaluations were perfomed by aur Nuclear Projects Office and our Point Beach Plant Supervisory Staff pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(a) and 10 CFR 50.59(b).
The reload fuel mechanical and thermal-hydraulic design for the Cycle 6 reload core is unchanged from that of greviously reviewed and accepted reload designs. The reload core meets the FgixP limit of less than 2.32 which is than 1.58, and penalties for rod bow, insure that the DNB ratio $H consistent with previous reload nuclear designs.
The current F limit of less will not be less than 1.30.
\\
TO 7901100AD 1
(
Mr.Jiarold R. Denton, Director December 29, 1978 In accordance with past practice, the reload safety evaluation relied on previously reviewed and accepted analyses reported in the FFDSAR and in earlier reload cycle RSER's. A revieu was made of the core charac-teristics to detemine those parameters affecting the postulated accident analyses reported in the FFDSAR.
In all cases it was found that the effects can be acconmodated within the conservatism of the initial assumptions used in the previous applicable safety analyses and thus the conclusions presented in the FFDSAR remain valid.
The reload safety evaluation demonstrated that Technical Specification changes are not required for operation of Unit 2 at full rated power during Cycle 6.
It was also demonstrated that unreviewed safety questions as defined by 10 CFR 50.59 are not involved and therefore application for an amendment to the Unit 2 operating license is not required.
Verification of the core design will of course be performed by means of the standard startup physics tests normally performed at the start of each cycle. The rod bank exchange method of performing rod worth neasurements was used for Unit 2, Cycles 4 and 5 and Unit 1, Cycles 6 and 7.
Based on our previous successful startup test experience, the rod bank exchange method will be used for the Unit 2, Cycle 6 startup. Safety evaluation of rod bank exchange method utilization was also performed by the Nuclect Projects Office and the Point Beach Plant Supervisory Staff pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
Very truly yours, n
Sol Burstein Execu ive Vice President