ML20197H800
| ML20197H800 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1990 |
| From: | Hairston W ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011200146 | |
| Download: ML20197H800 (2) | |
Text
..
Allbtma Power Company 40 inverness Center Parkway Pvd Qibce Box 1295
. e 20 B6 5B W, G. Hairston,111 Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations AlabamaPower the southom eW.tre system November 9,1990 Docket No. 50-364 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 Cycle 8 Reload The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 2 recently completed its seventh cycle of operation with a refueling outage that commenced on October 12, 1990. The seventh cycle of operation was completed with a cycle burnup of 17,050.9 MWD /MTU.
This letter is to advise you of Alabama Power Company's review of the Farley Unit 2 Cycle 8 reload core design and plans regarding its implementation.
The Farley Unit 2 Cycle 8 core reload was designed to perform within the current design parameters, Technical Specifications and related bases, and current setpoints. A total of one Region-5, 35 Region-8, 65 Region-9, and 56 fresh Region-10 fuel assemblies and 576 frcsh Wet Annular Burnable Absorbers (WABAs) will be inserted at the refueling outage. The Region-10 assemblies dit fer from the previous design in that they include the following changes: rotated dimples on the inner grid straps of the top and bottom inconel grids, crowned dimples on the inner grid straps of the mid grids, Updated Fuel Assembly Design features, Updated Core Component Design features, and Modified Debris Filter Bottom Nozzle (MDFBN).
A det:iled review of the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Report (RSi.R) for Farley Unit 2 Cycle 8, including all postulated events considered in the FSAR, has been completed. The 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 the 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 methodology as outlined in the July 1985 Westinghouse topical report entitled " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology" (WCAP-9273-A).
9011200146 901109 DR AD0cK 0500 gg/
i 40
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 The RSER demonstrates that Technical Specification changes are not required for operation of Farley Unit 2 Cycle 8.
Alabama Power Company's Plant Operations Review Committee has concluded that no unreviewed safety 1
questions defined by 10 CFR 50.59 are involved with this reload.
Therefore, based on this review, an application for amendment to the farley Unit 2 Operating License is not required. The RSER will be reviewed by the Nuclear Operations Review Board at a later meeting.
Verification of the reload core design will be performed per the standard startup physics tests normally performed for Westinghouse PWR reload 1
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; 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.
Respectfully submitted, ALABAMA POWER COMPANY q). A./f] li W. G. Hairston, III WGH,III/ gps cc:
Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. S. T. Hoffman Mr. G. F. Maxwell i
l I
i