ML20063P870
| ML20063P870 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1982 |
| From: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Clark R, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210150430 | |
| Download: ML20063P870 (2) | |
Text
lMsconsin Electnc eom couan 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 October 11, 1982 Mr. H.
R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Mr.
R. A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 3 Gentlemen:
DOCKET NO. 50-266 POINT BEACil NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 CYCLE 11 RELOAD The refueling shutdown at the end of Unit 1, Cycle 10 is planned to begin on October 22, 1982 at a cycle burnup of about 7,300 MWD /T, within a range of -500 to +500 MWD /T.
Startup of Cycle 11 is expected to occur in early December 1982.
This letter is to advise you of our plans regarding the Unit 1, Cycle 11 reload core.
The Unit 1, Cycle 11 reload core will be 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 Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) which could be affected by the reload core, reevaluation will demot. strate that the results of the postulated events will be within allowable limits.
Based on the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Report (RSER) for Unit 1, Cycle 11 and discussions with Westinghouse Electric Corporation, safety evaluations will be performed by our Nuclear Engineering Section and our Point Beach Nuclear Plant Supervisory Staff pursuant to the requirements of 10 CPR 50.59(a) and 10 CPR 50.59 (b).
locl
~l~
8210150430 821011 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
d Mr. H. R. Denton. October 11, 1982
..The. reload fuel mechanical and thermal-hydraulic design.for the Cycle 11 reload core will be unchanged ~from that of previously reviewed and accepted reload designs.
The reload core will meet the F3xP limit of less than 2L.32 which is consistent with' previous reIoad nuclear designs.
The current i
FEH limit of less than 1.58 will ensure that the DNB ratio will L
be greater than 1.30.
(
In accordance with past practice, the reload safety evaluation will rely on previously reviewed and accepted analyses reported in the FSAR and in earlier reload cycle RSER's.
A review will be made of the core characteristics to determine those parameters affecting the postulated accident analyses reported in the FSAR.
The parameter values will be verified;to be within the conservatism of the initial assumptions used in the previous applicable safety analyses and, thus, the conclusions presented in the FSAR will remain valid.
The reload safety evaluation will demonstrate that, as j.
far as the reload core is concerned, Technical Specification I
changes will not be required for operation of Unit 1 at full rated power during Cycle 11.
It will also demonstrate that unreviewed safety questions, as defined by 10 CFR 50.59, will
(
.not be involved and, therefore, application for an amendment to
~the Unit 1 operating license will not be required for the Cycle 11 relead core.
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.
As you are aware, we.have been monitoring Unit 1 primary system flow to ensure that' additional steam generator tube plugging will not' reduce flow to~1ess than the Thermal Design Flow (TDF) value of 178,000~gpm, as specified in the Point Beach Technical Specifications.
Technical Specification Change Request No. 85 (C. W. Fay to H. R. Denton letter dated September 20, 1982) was submitted.to cover the possibility that additional steam generator tube plugging would reduce primary system flow to less than TDF. 'In such event Unit 1 would be operated at less than 91% of rated power in accordance with the proposed Technical Specification changes.
The Unit 1, Cycle 11 reload core design and safety evaluation was also performed to accommodate less than 100% TDF consistent with these proposed Technical Specification changes.
Additional Technical Specification changes would not be required and the conclusions presented above would apply when Technical Specification Change Request No. 85 is approved.
l l
Verytrulyy[ours, i
f T
& 70 AssistantVic$/
e President C. W. Fay-I i
Copy to NRC Resident Inspector l
.