ML20150A792
| ML20150A792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1988 |
| From: | Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NT-88-0098, NT-88-98, NUDOCS 8803160041 | |
| Download: ML20150A792 (2) | |
Text
NT-88-0098 Atbama Power Comp;ny I
600 North 18th Strnt Post Office Box 2641 o
Birrnngham, Alabama 352910400 Telephone 205 250-1835 m
R. P. Mcdonald Sen.or Vice President March 8, 1988 AIUbafila POWCf the scwen erette swem 10 CFR 50.4 Docket No. 50-348 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANI - UNIT 1 CYCLE 9 RELOAD Gentlemen:
The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 is currently in its eighth cycle of operation with a refueling outage scheduled to comence during March 1988. We eighth cycle of operation is expected to be terminated within a cycle burnup range of 15,500 to 16,400 MNDAmJ. 21s letter is to advise you of Alabama POWr Company's review of the Farley Unit 1 Cycle 9 core reload design and plans regarding its implementation.
We Farley Unit 1 Cycle 9 core reload was designed to perform within the current design parameters, Technical Specifications and related bases, and current setpoints. A total of 28 twice-burned Region-9 fuel assemblies, 61 once-burned Region-10 fuel assemblies, 68 fresh Region-11 fuel assemblies, and 704 fresh Wet Annular Burnable Absorber rodlets will be leaded during the refueling outage. We Regior.-ll assemblies differ from the previous design in that they include the following changes: a modified fuel rod bottom end plug, Reconstitutable Top Nozzles, standardized fuel pellets, and a modified top nozzle fuel assembly holddown spring and screw.
A detailed review of the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Report (RSER) for Farley Unit 1 Cycle 9, including all postulated events con-sidered in the FSAR, has been completed. The RSER included a review of the Cycle 9 core characteristics to determine that the assumed values of the input parameters affecting the postulated accident analyses reported in the Farley FSAR remained bounding. Events for which previously assumed values of input parameters were not bounding were evaluated or reanalyzed.
For all such events, the results met the NRC acceptance criteria. This verification was performed in accordance with the Westinghouse reload safety evaluation metbodology as outline in the July 1985 Westinghouse topical report entitled "Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology" (NCAP-9273-A).
W e reload safety evaluation demonstrated that Technical Specification changes are not required for operation of Farley Unit 1 Cycle 9.
Alabama Power Company's Plant Operations Review Comittee has concluded that no unreviewed safety questions defhied by 10CFR50.59 are involved with this 8803160041 000300
//
PDR ADOCK.'5000340 I O P
d i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
March 8, 1988 4
Page 2 1
2 reload. We reload safety evaluation will be revited by the Nuclear operations Review Board at a later meeting. %erefore, based on this review, an application for amendment to the Farley Unit 1 operating license is not required.
t j
Verification of the reload core design will be performed per the r
l standard startup physics tests normally performed for Westinghouse PWR reload cycles. %ese tests will include, but not be limited tu, measurements oft (1) Control rod drop time; (2) Critical boron concentration; (3) Control rod bank worth; (4) Moderator temperature coefficient; and 3
(5) startup power distribution using the incore flux mapping system.
Results of these tests and a core loading map will be submitted f
7 I
approximately 90 days after startup of Cycle 9.
l i
Yours very t 1,
L ' [l.,
s uLW R. P. Mcdonald 3
I RPK/MDR emb 1
)
cc Mr. L. B. Long l
Dr. J. N. Grace Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford i
J i
i i
-