ML20027B401
| ML20027B401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1982 |
| From: | Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209200395 | |
| Download: ML20027B401 (2) | |
Text
Malling Address Alibima Power CompIny 600 North 18th Street Post Of6ca Box 2641 Birmingham, Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 783-6081 F. L. Clayton, Jr.
b Rn"$,'g'Ogd*"'
Alabama Power o
g the southern electnc system September 14, 1982 Docket No. 50-364 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. S. A. Varga Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 Cycle 2 Reload Gentlemen:
Farley Unit 2 is currently in its first cycle of operation with a refueling outage scheduled to commence in late October, 1982.
First cycle operation will be terminated within a cycle burnup range of 14,600 to 15,800 MWD /MTV.
This letter is to advise you of Alabama Power Company's review of and plans regarding the Farley Unit-2 Cycle-2 core reload.
The Farley Unit-2 Cycle-2 core reload was designed to perform within the current nominal design parameters, Technical Specifica-tions and related bases, and current setpoints.
A total of 1 Region 1, 52 Region 2, 52 Region 3, and 52 f resh Region 4 fuel assemblies will be inserted at the refueling outage.
The mechan-ical, nuclear and thermal-hydraulic design of the Region 4 fuel assemblies is identical to the previous region except for a reduc-tion of rod internal pressure, the use of a reconstitutable bottom nozzle, and a modified corner grid strap design to prevent grid hangup during refueling.
These changes are generic in nature to the 17X17 fuel assembly and are not reload dependent.
Alabama Power Company has performed a detailed review of the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Report (RSER) for Farley Unit-2 Cycle-2, including all postulated incidents considered in the FSAR and the Westinghouse fuel densification report, WCAP-8219,
" Fuel Densification Experimental Results and Model for Reactor Operation."
The RSER included a review of the core characteristics to determine those parameters affecting the postulated accident analyses reported in the Farley analysis.
Alabama Power Company
()()f concluded that Cycle-2 design parameters are conservative with respect to those assumed in the previous analysis; therefore, no 8209200 37 7 g
Mr. S. A. Varga September 14, 1982 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission accident was reanalyzed based on Cycle-2 parameters.
This verifi-cation is consistent with the Westinghouse reload safety evaluation methodology as outlined in the March 1978 Westinghouse topical report entitled, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodol-ogy," (WC AP-927 2).
The reload safety evaluation demonstrated that Technical Specification changes are not required for operation of Farley Unit-2 during Cycle-2.
Alabama Power Company's Plant Operations Review Committee and Nuclear Operations Review Board have concluded that no unreviewed safety questions defined by 10CFR50.59 are involved with this reload.
Therefore, based on this review, an application for amendment to the Farley Unit 2 operating license is not required.
Verification of the reload core design will be performed per the standard startup physics tests normally performed for Westinghouse PWR reload cycles.
These tests will include, but not he limited to, measurements of:
(1)
Control rod drop time; (2)
Critical boron concentration; (3)
Control rod bank worth; (4)
Moderator temperature coefficient; (5)
Startup power distribution using the incore flux mapping system.
Results of these tests and a core loading map will be submitted within ninety (90) days after startup of Cycle 2.
Yours very truly, f
N F.).Clayton, r.
FLCJ r/MDR :j c-D29 cc:
Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge Mr. J. P. O'Reilly l
Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford G
l