ML18136A099

Discusses Plans for Cycle 5 Reload Core,Supplementing Info in 790723 ltr.WCAP-9272, Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology, Used to Analyze Cycle 5 Reload Core

ML18136A099
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	10/22/1979
From:	Thomas W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:	Harold Denton, Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
567A, NUDOCS 7910240596
Download: ML18136A099 (2)

Text

e VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND,VIRGINIA 23261 Octbb~t 22, 1979 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Serial No. 567A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FR/MLB: mvc Attn: Mr. Albert Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Docket No.: 50-281 Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License No.: DPR-37 Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

RELOAD INFORMATION.FOR CYCLE 5 SURRY NUCLEAR.POWER STATION UNIT NO; 2 Surry Unit No. 2 completed its fourth cycie of operation on February 4, 1979 and went into an extended outage for steam generator replacement, refueling and other plant modifications. The purpose of *this letter is to advise you of our plans for the Cycle 5 reload core and supplements the information previously provided in my letter to you of July 23, 1979 (Serial No. 567).

The Cycle 5 reload core was analyzed in accordance with the methodology documented in Westinghouse topical report WCAP-9272 entitled "Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology." The analysis conducted was consistent with the plant modifications now being made on steam generators and safeguards systems (NPSH concerns) assuming NRC approval of our request for an a~endment to Operating License DPR-37 (reference our letters from C. M. Stallings to H. R. Denton, dated May 31, 1979, Serial No. 388 and October 16, 1979, Serial No. 820). The results of this analysis indicated that no core parameters would become more limiting during Cycle 5 operations than the value assumed in the currently applicable safety analysis.

Therefore, no accident reanalysis was required. Further, the analysis demonstrated no need for changes to the Technical Specifications.

A detailed review of the Westinghouse methodology, analysis techniques, and results has been conducted by our technical staff. In addition, a review has been performed by both the Station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee and the System Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee. It has been determined that no unreviewed safety questions as defined in 10 CFR 50.59 will exist as a result of the Cycle 5 reload core.

Verification of the reload core will be performed through a startup physics testing program. Unless otherwise indicated, this program and supporting design predictions will be consistent with documentation pro~ided in our letter from C. M. Stallings to E*. G. Case, Serial No. 108, dated March 15, 1978 except that the power coefficient test will no longer be performed. Results of this test program will be provided within ninety (90) days after completion of the startup \

of Cycle 5. ~(U 7910240 s-'J b p

e e VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO Mr. Denton 2 This letter, along with our letter of July 23, 1979 (Serial No. 567),

is provided for your information. However, should you have questions, please contact us at your earliest convenience.

W. N. Thomas Vice President Fuel Resources cc: Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region II I_