ML20097F803
| ML20097F803 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1992 |
| From: | Gates W OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| LIC-92-159R, TAC-M80438, NUDOCS 9206160053 | |
| Download: ML20097F803 (2) | |
Text
J I
Omaha Public Power District 444 South 16th Street Mall Ornaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 402 N 2 M June 10, 1992 LIC-92-159R V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, DC 20555
References:
1.
Docket No. 50 285 2.
Letter from NRC (J. T. Larkins) to OPPD (W. G. Gates) dated March 26, 1992 (TAC No M80438) 3.
Letter from OPPD 15,199(2 (LIC-92-175R)W. G. Gates) to NRC (Document Control De dated May Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
CENTS Code Technical Manuals Review Schedule As noted in Reference 2, Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) has requested NRC approval of the CENTS Code by March 1993 to allow its use in development of the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) associated with the Fort Calhoun Station Code) features improved modeling ) fidelity and accuracy.
(FCS Cycle 15 Reload Application. In comparison with the CESEC Code, the CENTS Reference 3 noted that pressurized thermal shock (PTS considerations necessitate additional flux reductions for Cycle 15, scheduled to begin in November 1993.
These flux reductions are expected to result in thermal margin losses.
Under these conditions, the CENTS Code is expected to improve the thermal margin available in the COLR versus the currently approved CESEC Code, in Reference 2, the NRC rec,ue;ted that OPPD describe the impact if the CENTS Code is not approved until hne 1993 or not approved before the end of the next refueling outage in No',erber 1993. OPPD's response to this request follows.
June _1_993 Accroval OPPD is targeting submittal of the Cycle 15 Reload Application for June 1993, which is approximately 145 days prior to Cycle 15 startup. The Cycle 15 Reload Application and COLR would thus be prepared using the currently approved CESEC Code. Upon NRC approval of the CENTS Code in June 1993, OPPD would revise the COLR utilizing the CENTS Code as input.
This COLR revision would require approximately 550 additional person-hours at a cost of $20,000.
4 9206160053 92061C f(OD PDR ADOCK 05000285
~
P PDR cua w ggym 1 0 asm A
.. - _.. ~. - _-
7, 1
3-t l-U. S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission LIC-92 159R p
Page 2 i
f' November 1993 Acoroval
[
Since the CESEC Code contains a more-conservative model of FCS than the CENTS.
a Code, the operating-limits for-- the Cycle 15-COLR are predicted to: he more i
restrictive if the CESEC code is used. Cycle 15 will use an' extreme low radial leakage core uesigned specifically toi addresse PTS z considerations.
Based ; on R
j previous reload experience, a 2'F to 6*F _ reactor vessel inlet temperature. (Tean) it decrease to recover the thermal margin lost due to the flux distribution of this core would be likely.
This would resulto in a :3 Mwe to 9.Mwe-reduction--in-generator electrical output.- Depending on the seasonloss from this lower electrical 600 to $82 800 per month. :
l As in the previous case, OPPD would also inct additional costs-of approximately-i
$20,000 to revise the COLR_using the CENTS-Ctu.
=l I
In summary, NRC'approvcl of the CENTS Code after March 1993 would caus'e OPPD toi i
incur additional expenses for revising the COLR,' and could have a significant-(~
operating impact-if FCS must-start Cycle 15-using a COLR based on the CESEC Code.
j Therefore, OPPD requests approval:of;the CENTS Code:by March 1993.
If you should have'any questions,1 please contact me.:
Sincerely,-
i M.A2 h i
W. G.-Gates Division Manager l
Nuclear _0perations 1
!c WGG/sel c:
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & HacRae-1 i:
R.'D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator,.-Region-IV_
L R. P.- Mullikin, NRC Senior Resident Inspector-S. D. Bloom, NRC Acting Project Manager-H r.f R
4 a
11 i
I j-
'i t..
[
i-h
,,,,, ~
,r
,.-m.
-.~.-.
-.. ~.. _... -. - - -,..
-