ML19350F164
| ML19350F164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350F163 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106240302 | |
| Download: ML19350F164 (2) | |
Text
_,
.: ?:..,,.'.
- !::T::::T*T::
-. ~ - /, ';e i.UC L E AR h E G U L,.J;,.'.~.' ; ~.,:.'.~.;;O~ ! O.~.
i.,"'.;,;ft.f wasmucrow n c rosss "Q-5EL/j O
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT-NO. 70 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 AND AMENDMENT NO. 70 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY L
SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 -
DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281 4
INTRODUCTION By letter dated April 28, 1981, as supplemented May 15, 1981, Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to License Nos.-DPR-32 and DPR-37 for the Surry Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2.
A letter dated July 28, 1980, also provided information pertinent to these changes. These changes would revise the total peaking factor, F, to a 0
value of 2.18.
Editorial changes have also been made as requested i.n the licensee's request.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION License Amendment No. 58 to Facility Operating License No. OPR-37 for Surry Power. Station, Unit 2, dated May 16, 1980, change? the value of Fr to 2.19 based on a LOCA-ECCS analysis w'"1 a steam generator tube plugginy limit of 3%.
In our Safety Evaluation (SE) supporting the Unit 2 change, we stated that the evaluation could be extended to Unit 1 after the unit is suitably modified to comply with the assumptions made in the ECCS-LOCA analysis.
Since Unit 1 is being modified as indicated in the Unit 2 SE, the SE for Unit 2 applies to Unit -1.
Therefore, we conclude that the change to Fg=2.19 for Unit 2 is applicable to Unit 1.
By letter dated July 28, 1980, the licensee reduced the F value of 2.19 to g
2.18 by administrative action. This change resulted from an assessment of the fuel rod modeling concerns raised in NUREG-0530.
This assessment indicated that a total peaking factor penalty of 0.007 remained after application of approved benefits giving' an Fg of 2.183. An Fg of 2.18 will more than account for the penalty. This change is in a conservative direction and an FQ of 2.18 is acceptable for both Units 1 and 2.
5 f
2 J
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total acounts nor an incestse in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from'the standooint of - -- -- -
environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR {51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the 4
issuance of these amendment's.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the consideratica", discussed above, that:
(l) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase
- in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in tne proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments vill not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
JUN 16198; e
O 4
l l
6 a