ML20197C881
| ML20197C881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1986 |
| From: | Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NT-86-0503, NT-86-503, NUDOCS 8611070103 | |
| Download: ML20197C881 (2) | |
Text
-
NT-86 0503 Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street e
j Post Office Box 2641 i
Birrr'ngham, Alabama 35291-0400 Telephone 205 250-1835 AlabamaPower S nio ce P sident N"
October 29, 1986 i*
Docket No. 50-348 I
Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmaission Washington, D. C. 20555 l
Attention:
Mr. L. S. Rubenstein I
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 1 CYCLE-8 REIDAD Gentlemen:
Farley-Unit I has completed its seventh cycle of operation with a j
cycle burnup of approximately 17,200 MND/MTU. his letter is to advise you of Alabama Power Company's review of the Farley Unit 1 Cycle-8 core reload design and plans regarding its implementation.
The Farley Unit 1 Cycle-8 core reload was designed to perform i
within the current design parameters, Technical Specifications and I
related bases, and current setpoints. A total of 4 Region-7, 18 Region-8, 74 Region-9, 61 fresh Region-10 fuel assemblies, and l
756 fresh, wet annular burnable absorber rodlets will be inserted at i
the refueling outage. Cycle-8 is the first Farley cycle in which the wet f
annular burnable absorber design is being used. The Region-10 assemblies differ from the previous design in that they include the following generic changes: chamfered fuel pellets, a modified fuel rod bottom end plug design, a reduced fuel rod helium backfill pressure, 4g plenum springs, i
and grid sleeves made from 304L stainless steel.
A detailed review of the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation 3
j Report (RSER) for Farley Unit 1 Cycle-8, including all postulated events considered in the FSAR, has been completed. We RSER included a review of the cycle-8 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 i
acceptance criteria. his verification was performed in accordance i
with the Westinghouse reload safety evaluation methodology as outlined l
in the July 1985 Westinghouse topical report entitled " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology" (WCAP-9272-P-A).
l
% e reload safety evaluation demonstrated that Technical Specification changes are not required for operation of Farley Unit 1 Cycle-8. Alabama Power Company's Plant Operations Review Committee has concluded that no unreviewed safety questions defined by 10CFR50.59 are 1
8611070103 861029 g g MN gen /A0stonZfidt
{
DR ADOcg 0500 8
Director, Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 29, 1986 Page 2 involved with this reload. %e reload safety evaluation will be reviewed 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.
Verification of the reload core design will be performed per the standard startup physics tests normally performed for Westinghouse PWR reload cycles. %ese 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; and (5) Startup power distribution using the incore flux mapping system.
Results of these tests and a core loading map will be submitted approximately 90 days after startup of Cycle-8.
Very truly yo R. P. Mcdonald RPftMDR:emb cc: Mr. L. B. Long Dr. J. N. Grace Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford