ML18139C332

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Rev 1 to Reload Safety Evaluation for Surry 2 Cycle 7 (Pattern JB2). Tech Specs Approved Through Amends 86 & 87,require No Addl Changes.Reload Core Design Will Be Verified
ML18139C332
Person / Time
Site: Surry Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 05/09/1983
From: Stewart W
VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To: Harold Denton, Varga S
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18139C333 List:
References
260, NUDOCS 8305120244
Download: ML18139C332 (3)


Text

e VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 W. L. STEWART VICE PREs1nENT NUCLEAR OPERATIONS May 9, 1983 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Serial No. 260 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation P,SE/NAS: vdu Attn: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Docket No.: 50-281 Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing License No.: DPR-37 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

RELOAD INFORMATION FOR CYCLE 7 SURRY POl~ER STJI.TION UN IT NO. 2 Surry Unit No. 2 is currently scheduled to complete its sixth cycle of operation on or about June 20, 1983. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of our plans for the Cycle 7 reload core.

The Cycle 7 reload core was analyzed in accordance with the methodology documented in tfosti nghouse Topi ca 1 Report l~CAP-9272 entitled 11 \tJesti nghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology." The results of this analysis indicated that no key analysis parameters will become more limiting during Cycle 7 operations than the values assumed in the currently applicable Safety Analyses, with the exception of one parameter, which effects one of the Control Rod Assembly Ejection Accident cases. This accident was reanalyzed and the results of the analysis were acceptable, as shown in the attached Reload Safety Evalua-tion. This reanalysis will be reflected in a future update to the Surry FSAR.

The Cycle 7 reanalysis demonstrated that the current Technical Specifi ca-tions, as approved through Amendment Nos. 86 and 87 for Surry Unit 1 arid 2, respectively, are appropriate and require no additional changes.

A detailed review of the Westinghouse methodology, analysis techniques and results has been conducted by our technical staff. In addition, a review of the Cycle 7 Reload Safety Evaluation has been performed by both the Station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee and the Safety Evaluation and Control Staff. It has been determined that no unreviewed safety questions as defined in 10 CFR50.59 will exist as a result of the Cycle 7 reload core; consequently, no significant safety hazard vJill be introduced.

8305120244 830509 PDR ADOCK 05000281 p PDR

e e VIRGIJ;"IA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMl'A.NY TO Page 2 Verification of the reload core design will be performed through a start-up physics testing program. Unless othen~ise indicated, this program will be consistent with the program proposed for North .Anna Unit 2 transmitted by our letter to you dated April 8, 1982 (Serial No. 204).

Should you have questions regarding this information, please contact us at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours, Attachment

1. Reload Safety Evaluation for Surry Unit 2 Cycle 7 cc: Mr. James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator Region II Mr. D. J. Burke NRC Resident Inspector Surry Power Sta ti on

ATTACHMENT 1 RELOAD SAFETY EVALUATION FOR SURRY UNIT 2, CYCLE 7