ML20245A089
| ML20245A089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1989 |
| From: | Hairston W ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904250043 | |
| Download: ML20245A089 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.
l _
..e t
(
. 40 Inverness C, enter Parkway 1
' Alabama Power Cempany Post Office Box CS
' Birmingham. Alabama 35E01 Telephone 205 068-5%i W. G. Hairston, Ill fl"cU$eU'o'n"s*"'
AlabamaPower the southem electnc system April 13, 1989 L
Docket No. 50-364 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Joseph M. Farley Nuclcar Plant - Unit 2 Cycle 7 Reload The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 2 recently completed its sixth cycle of operation with a refueling outage that commenced on March 24, 1989. The sixth cycle of operation was completed with a cycle burnup of 16,137.8 MWD /MTV. This letter is to advise you of Alabama Power Company's review of the Farley Unit 2 Cycle 7 reload core design and plans regarding its implementation.
The Farley Unit 2 Cycle 7 core reload was designed to perform within the current design parameters, Technical Specifications and related bases, and current setpoints. A total of 8 Region-6, 20 Region-7, 64 Region-8, and 65 fresh Region-9 fuel assemblies and 684 fresh Wet Annular Burnable Absorbers will be inserted at the refueling outage.
The Region-9 assemblies differ from the previous design in that they include the following changes: standardized fuel pellets, snag resistant grids, a modified top nozzle fuel assembly holddown spring and screw, and extended burnup features (longer fuel rod, longer assembly, and thinner bottom nozzle).
A detailed review of the Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Report (RSER) for Farley Unit 2 Cycle 7, including all postulated events considered in the FSAR, has been completed.
The RSER included a review of the Cycle 7 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.
I fo 8904250043 890413 I I PDR ADOCK 05000364 P
PDC k
pd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 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).
The RSER demonstrates that-Technical Specification changes are not
-required for operation of Farley Unit 2 Cycle 7.
Alabama Power Company's Plant Operations Revi_ew Committee has concluded that no unreviewed safety quattions 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 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 7.
Respectfully submitted, ALABAMA POWER COMPANY N.l Yo W. G. Hairston, III WGH/AA: gps cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. G. F. Maxwell
,