ML20101E490
| ML20101E490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1984 |
| From: | Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8412260272 | |
| Download: ML20101E490 (2) | |
Text
o
+,-7;e_
ye s
- ~
'~ ^ ~^"" * * * ~
^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~
N
, H;lN O.-
. Memng Addeoes,
- i. ~
- Alabann Power Compariy1 5 600 North 18th Strat '
r J Post Office Box 2641.+
Birrr+ngham, Alabama 35291 -
l bi
,, < Telephone 205 783-6090 '
1 R. P, Mcdonald -
~
.c.
Senior Vice President.. _.
&I O
f Aflintridge Building -__
AlabamaPower tresournem 6ectnc system
~
.. 18, 1984 December 1 Docket No. 50-364 -
s
. Director, Nuclear:' Reactor: Regulation -
~
l
-U. S. Nuclear; Regulatory Coeulission.
. Washington,i D.C. ! 20555 "l
~
Attentionf Mr. Se A.--Varga ;
_ Joseph M. Farley Nuclear P1 ant - Unit 2 Cycle-4 Reload
~
Gentlemen:
- refueling outage scheduled to connience in early January 1985. Third cycle
~
Farley Unit 2 i_s current 1y' in its third cycle of operation with a:
- operation-will be terminated within a cycle burnup range of 13,360 to 15,360~-
IMWD/MTU. This letter is to advise you of. Alabama Power Company's review of Lthe Farley Unit-2 Cycle-4 core reload design and plans regarding its implementation.
~
~
- The Far1ey Unit-2 Cycle-4 core reload was designed to perform within -
the. current nominal design parameters, Technical Specifications and related ba'ses, and current ~ setpoints. _ A total of. 21 Region-4, 64 Region-5, and 72 I
4
- fresh Region-6 fuel-assemblies will be inserted at the refueling outage.
The. mechanical, Lnuclear and thermal-hydraulic. design of the ' Reload-6 fuel assemblies is identical to the design of the previous region..
t Alabama Power Company has performed a-. detailed review of the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Report (RSER) for Farley Unit-2 Cycle-4,Jincluding 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 1the postulated accident analyses reported in the Farley FSAR. Alabama Power Company concluded that Cycle-4 design parameters are conservative with respect to those assumed in the; previous analyses; therefore, no accident -
' was reanalyzed based on Cycle-4 parameters. This verification is consistent e
with the Westinghouse reload, safety evaluation methodology as outlined in Safety Evaluation Methodology,gical report entitled, " West.inghouse Reload the March 1978 Westinghouse to
~ ( WCAP-9272).
o
'~
I 4
- 41"" h272 841218m 9p4 g g-
ytr y,_
'm, Mr.J S. A. Varga i December 18, 1984
- U. S.; Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 The reload _ safety evaluation demons + rated that Technical Spocification changes are not required for operation of Farley Unit-2. during Cycle-4.
~
Alabama Power Company's Plant Operations Review Comnittee 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 nonna11y performed for Westinghouse PWR reload cycles. These tests'will include, but not be limited to,
' measurements of:
(1), Control rod drop time;
-(2) Critical-boron concentration;
.(3) Control rod bank worth; (4). Moderator temperature coefficient; (5_) Power distribution using the incore flux mapping system at various power levels during power ascension.
Results of these tests and a core loading map will be submitted approximately ninety-(90) days after startup of Cycle-4.
Yours very truly R. P. Mcdonald RPM /MDR:ddb
-cc: Mr. L. B. Long Mr. J. P. O'Reilly
-Mr. E. A. Reeves
- Mr. W. H. Bradford Mr. Dan Turner