ML20235Z096
| ML20235Z096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1987 |
| From: | Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NT-87-0438, NT-87-438, NUDOCS 8710200594 | |
| Download: ML20235Z096 (2) | |
Text
_
w NT 87.0438 Alabama Power company
' 600 North 18th Street
. A.
4'
/
Post office Box 2641 Ehrmingham, Alabama 35291-0400 Telephone 205 2501835 k
USNRC-DS i
R. P. McD onald RJi OCT 20 A O 0l Alabama Power i
Senior Vice President the southern ctectic system October 12, 1987 Docket No. 50-364 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PIMTr - UNIT 2 CYCLE 6 RELOAD Gentlemen:
The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 2 has completed its fifth cycle of operation with a cycle burnup of 16,674 MWD /M'IU.
This letter is to advise you of Alabama Power Company's review of the Farley Unit 2 Cycle 6 core reload design and plans regarding its implementation.
The Farley Unit 2 Cycle 6 core reload was designed to perform within the current design parameters, Technical Specifications and related bases, and current setpoints. A total of 25 twice-burned Region-6 fuel assemblies, 68 once-burned Region-7 fuel assemblies, 64 fresh Region-8 fuel assemblies, and 656 fresh Wet Annular Burnable Absorber rodlets will be loaded during the refueling outage. The Region-8 assemblies differ from the previous design in that they include the following changes: a modified fuel rod bottom end plug, 4g plenum springs, and Reconstitutable Top Nozzles.
A detailed review of the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Report (RSER) for Farley Unit 2 Cycle 6, including all postulated events con-sidered in the FSAR, has been completed. The RSER included a review of the Cycle 6 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 methodology as outline in the July 1985 Westinghouse topical report entitled " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology" (WCAP-9273-A).
The reload safety evaluation demonstrated that Technical Specification changes are not required for operation of Farley Unit 2 Cycle 6.
Alabama Power Company's Plant Operations Review Committee has concluded that no unreviewed safety questions defined by 10CFR50.59 are involved with this reload. The reload safety evaluation will be reviewed by the Nuclear Operations Review Board at a later meeting. Therefore, based on this review, an application for amendment to the Farley Unit 2 operating license
)
is not required, p
h 8710200594 871012 O
i PDR ADOCK 05000364 P
4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 12, 1987 Page 2 Verification of the reload core design will be performed per the
)
standard startup physics tests normally performed for Westinghouse PWR reload. cycles. '1hese tests will include, but not be limited to, measurements of:
(1) Control rod drop time; 3
(2) Critical boron concentration; i
(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 6.
Yours ve t ly, QU' R. P. Mcdonald RPit4tDR:emb cc:
Mr. L. B. Long Dr. J. N. Grace Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford 1