ML20069D927

Application for Amend to Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,revising Limitations & Bases Re Use of Westinghouse 14x14 Optimized Fuel Assembly Design

ML20069D927
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/14/1983
From:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Clark R, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20069D931	List: ML20069D927 ML20069D934
References
TAC-49969, TAC-49970, NUDOCS 8303210111
Download: ML20069D927 (4)

Text

O Msconsin Electnc eomcoww

' 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.o. BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 March 14, 1983 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. H. R. Denton, Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. R. A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch-3

Dear Gentlemen:

DOCKETS NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 87 SPECIFICATION FOR UTILIZATION OF OPTIMIZED FUEL ASSEMBLY DESIGN POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) hereby submits its application for an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate certain changes and revisions into the Point Beach Technical Specifications. These proposed changes to the Technical Specifications cover the limitations and related bases involved with operation of the Point Beach units using fuel of a similar design, referred to as the Westinghouse 14x14 Optimized Fuel Assembly (0FA) design.

Operation of the Point Beach reactors with standard design fuel, and up to four demonstration 0FA fuel assemblies, will continue to be governed by the current Technical Specifications until the first region of 0FA fuel is loaded.

The Westinghouse OFA fuel contains design features which include improved neutron economy and improved uranium utilization and separative work requirements when compared to the Westinghouse standard fuel assembly. These design features are accomplished through a reduction in fuel rod diameter and a change in the spacer grid material from Inconel to Zircaloy in all but the top and bottom grids. The attached Technical Specification page changes are based on analyses covering both the transition cycles, the cores of which will contain both standard and 0FA fuel assemblies, and the subsequent cycles with cores comprised entirely of 0FA fuel. Cores consisting entirely of standard design fuel, with up to four demonstration 0FA assemblies, are not " transition" cores and are covered by our current analyses. The most limiting core conditions were used to develop the new Technical Specification page changes. Detailed discus-sions of the analyses performed will be contained in the transition core licen-sing documentation. This documentation should be ready for submittal by about July 1983. In the future, this information will be incorporated into the Point Beach updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), as appropriate.  ! l O

B303210111 830314 PDR ADOCK 05000266 YO l P PDR gp

&#1

^

va y -

.j

=

. y :7 .

W

,% g( ,,, -

. S :l N lMr.'N.'.'R.-L0enton- e March 14, 1983 W

. In addition to covering:use of 0FA-fuel, the following items were incor--

?poratedcin the Technical Specifications in conjunction ~with,the safety analyses.

, . performed for OFA. fuel utilization:

il JA change in~the F limitforougationtoF"'<1.58x[1+0.3(1-P)]. -

Currently this, foNulation is:Fj<,1.58x[NOT2(1-P)].

.2. <Use of.the. Relaxed Axial' Offset Controix(RAOC) strategy-instead of the iconstant Axial Offset Control method currently in use.

' 4. - .Use'of 0.95 for Refueling-K,ff instead of.0.90 which is' currently.

1being used, j ,

~

5. Allowance for a'small pos'itive' moderator temperature coefficient (+5-

pcm/*F) for up to.70% power.- u

~

The analyses which were performed to,p"rovide these related Technical

. Specification changes employed the Westinghouse' Improved Thermal Design Procedure

~

(ITDP) methodology for the'0FA fuel as presented in WCAP-8568, '! Improved Thermal

~

Design Procedure", Chelemer H. ~Boman L.H., Sharp D.R., July 1975. This procedure satisfies the thermal design' basis that protects against a departure from nucleate c boiling (DNB) in the~ core. The procedure employs statistical methods to combine variations-in plant operating parameters, nuclear and thermal parameters and

-fuel fabrication parameters. The Westinghouse WR8-1 DNB correlation is used on

'the OFA fuel. For standard fuel in the transition cores, the Westinghouse W-3 DN8 correlation is used.

Table 1 contains a list of significant_OFA fuel assembly characteristics along with the standard fuel assembly characteristics for comparison. The OFA Lfuel is. fully compatible with the Westinghouse standard design fuel assemblies.

.Our letter to you dated July 1,1980 discussed our plans for loading 0FA demon-stration assemblies in the Unit 2. Cycle 8 core. Visual examination of the

~

demonstration assemblies at the end of Cycle 8 demonstrated that the OFA fuel was behaving as expected. In addition, Westinghouse has completed an extensive testing program to verify mechanical and thermal-hydraulic characteristics of the fuel. Flow characteristics and thermal-hydraulic capability were determined

'by means of side-by side tests at the. Westinghouse Fuel Assembly Test System (FATS) facility.

The Technical Specification changes, as currently proposed, do not reflect later Loss of Coolant (LOCA) analyses which will be completed in the near future. Specifically, the following LOCA analyses are contemplated:

1. Incorporation of the Point Beach Upper Plenum Injection (UPI) model in the LOCA calculations for the large break sizes.

2. ~ Employment of a Westinghouse computer code currently under NRC review for analysis of the'"small break" LOCA's.

p 4

'ol Mr. H. R. Denton March 14, 1983

.The OFA LOCA analyses currently applicable did not include an UPI model. -Instead a penalty for the Peak Clad Temperature (PCT) was used to cover

-the effects of UPI. Our recent letter dated February 22, 1983 presented sample calculation'results for the Westinghouse UPI model, assuming use of 0FA fuel.

Performance of the "small break" LOCA analyses has been purposely delayed pending completion of NRC review of the Westinghouse "small break" LOCA model and computer codes. These analyses will oe performed and their results incorporated in the Technical Specifications and the licensing documentation prior to_ loading of the first 0FA reload region.

Calculations were performed to determine the thermal-hydraulic effects of 0FA fuel on the spent fuel pool storage racks. The adequacy of the existing spent fuel pool heat removal system was verified. "The effect of 0FA fuel radia-tion dose rates on the spent fuel pool _ wall, the spent fuel storage racks and the rack poison materials'was also quantified consistent with the previous licensing of the high density' spent fuel storage racks.

A criticality analysis of the effects of storing 0FA fuel in the new fuel vault and the spent fuel racks was performed by Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc. The cri_ticality analyses covered unirradiated 0FA_ fuel of enrichments up to 4.0 weight percent of U-235 which corresponds to a U-235 loading of 39.4 grams per axial centimeter. A description and discussion of the results of analyses concerning storage of new and spent OFA fuel in the new fuel vault and in the spent fuel pool will be provided with the transition core licensing submittal.

The Technical Specification changes specifically required are listed in Attach-ment A. Attachment B contains the proposed technical specification page changes.

Changes from current specifications and bases are identified by a solid line in the right hand margin. The Technical Specification page changes proposed are based upon analyses which bound the transition cores and full 0FA fuel cores and, therefore, are applicable to all cores containing 0FA fuel, except for the current cores containing up to four demonstration assemblies of 0FA fuel. Use of demonstration OFA fuel is governed by current Technical Specifications. The bases for the Technical Specification changes have also been revised as appro-priate to reflect the revisions to the specifications and to describe the pur-l pose of the specification.

I It is anticipated that the initial loading of 0FA fuel will be inserted into Point Beach Unit 2 for Reload Cycle 11 beginning in the fall of 1984. The first reload of 0FA fuel for Point Beach Unit I would follow in the spring of 1985. Since it is desired that Unit 1 continue to operate with the existing Technical Specifications until after 0FA fuel is loaded in its core, it is re-quested that these proposed Technical Specification revisions be issued initially for Point Beach Unit 2 operation to be effective with the Cycle 11 startup.

The specification revisions for Point Beach Unit 1 could then be issued at a later date, or issued together with the Unit 2 amendment, but made effective at a later date concurrent with the Unit 1 Reload Cycle 13 startup in the spring of 1985.

Although the first loading of reload 0FA fuel is not scheduled until the fall of 1984, for Point Beach Unit 2 Cycle 11, we request that your review of these proposed Technical Specification changes begin as soon as possible.

As mentioned earlier, licensing documentation in support of this application will be submitted by about July 1983.

_o i

Mr._H.-R..Denton March 14, 1983 In accordance with ~the schedule of amendment approval fees for reactor facility licenses listed in 10 CFR Part 170.22, Licensee has determined that this license amendment approval for Point Beach Unit 1 should be classified as a Class IV amendment. This classification is based on the premise that this application involves several different changes of the Class III type which are related to the single issue of use of 0FA. While this may result in review of a

.more complex issue, we believe that these changes do not constitute a significant hazard consideration nor require an extensive envirenmental impact appraisal.

The amendment approval for Point Beach Unit 2 is a duplicate of the Unit 1 review. ~Accordingly, a Class I approval fee is required. We have enclosed a check in.the amount of $12,700 for payment of these approval fees.

As further specified in the_ Commission's regulations, we enclose here-with three signed originals and 40 copies of this license amendment application.

Please contact Licensee if you have any questions concerning this submittal or schedule for noticing and licensing of 0FA fuel utilization at Point Beach.

Very truly yours,

_Y bb U , d

C. W. Fay Vice President - Nuclear Power Enclosures (Check No. 720546)

Copy to NRC Resident Inspector Subscribed and sworn to before me~

this/ g day of March 1983.

4Qeuh<r  %

Notary' Put1 Tic, State of Wisconsin

My Commission expires Mg /,. pry */

. .