ML20078F589
| ML20078F589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1983 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078F572 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310110084 | |
| Download: ML20078F589 (3) | |
Text
__ ______
'o UNITED STATES
~g 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
f' E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 9'0 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-32
^
AND AMENDMENT NO. 89 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281 Introduction By letter dated May 2,1983, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to the facility operating licenses for Surry Power' Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The licensee proposed increasing the N from 0.2 to 0.3 for both units and changing partial power multiplier for F3H
., lhe rod insertion limits for Unit No. 1.
Discussion and Evaluation i
Technical Specification Change Historically, increasing thejallowable F"H with decreasing' power. has.
l A
been permitted for all previously approved Westinghouse designs. The increase is permitted by the DNB protection setpoints and allows for radial power distribution changes with rod insertion to the insertion
.m limit. The change to a larger (0.2 to 0.3) partial power multiplier is requested for Surry Units 1 and 2 to allow optimization of the core at low power. The l
loading pattern by minimizing restrictions on FAH
(
change will also minimize the probability of making rod insertion limit changes (such as was made for Unit 1 prior to Cycle 7) to satisfy peaking factor criteria at low power with the control rod banks at the insertion limit.
$$g MO@fol@83jjg 0
P pop The Surry core thermal limits and axial offset limits for an increased N
allowable F at reduced power levels were determined using VEPCo's 3H version of the COBRA code and standardfestinghouse methodology.
l e
o
,, As a result of the multiplier change, small changes to the core thermal limits, overtemperature and overpower iT setpoints and the F(AI) function were necessary. The required changes were made to the Technical Specifications.
Wehaveapprovedthe0.3partialpowermultiplierforF$g for WCAP-9500 and several other plants. The licensee's request for the Surry Units 1 and 2 changes is similar. Based on our review we find this change acceptable.
~
Rod Insertion Technical Spec.ification Change for Unit 1 For Cycle 7, the rod insertion limits for Unit 1 were raised from the previously established limits in order to maintain the radial power peaking factors (FN ) below the Technical Specification limits (i.e.,
g F$g 51.55 (1.0 + 0.2(1-P)) when P = fraction of rated thermal power).
The reload safety evaluatiion of Unit 1 Cycl.e 7 established that after
~
N 1000 MWD /MTU of Cycle 7 burnup, F would stay within the limits defined 3g 1 55 (1.0 + 0.3(1-P)) with the previously acceptable rod insertion by F 1
AH limits. Since the 0.3 partial power multiplier is established, the licensee has requested to change the rod insertion limits back to the previously established limits after 1000 MWD /MTU of Cycle 7 operation.
We were aware that the licensee would be proposing this change as soon as the 0.3 partial power multiplier was established and we agree that the change is appropriate.
Based on our review we find the rod insertion limit change for Unit 1 to be acceptable after 1000 MWD /MTU of Cycle 7 operation.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase 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 standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 651.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will bc conducted.in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
September 22, 1983 Principal Contributor:
Margaret Chatterton i
w
--,e
,,,,,,,----e
-,v--,-.-..,,,--v. -, - -,, - - - - - - < -
m--
,,