ML18153A756
| ML18153A756 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1995 |
| From: | Ohanlon J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A360 | List: |
| References | |
| 95-425, NUDOCS 9509120229 | |
| Download: ML18153A756 (2) | |
Text
,
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 September 6, 1995 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION Serial No.95-425 NLP/WFR/RPC R3 Docket Nos.
50-280 50-281 50-338 50-339 License Nos.
DPR-32 DPR-37 NPF-4 NPF-7 The purpose of this letter is to request the NRC's approval of Virginia Electric and Power Company's (Virginia Power) revision of both the Surry Power Station Emergency Plan and the North Anna Power Station Emergency Plan (Plans). These revisions modify the mobilization requirements for select emergency staffing positions intended to augment the onshift response capability during an emergency at both the Surry and North Anna power stations. Furthermore, these revisions identify goals for Emergency Response Facility activation times. The revision is provided in Attachment 1 for Surry Power Station and in Attachment 2 for North Anna Power Station. provides an associated justification and demonstrates the undue burden now present due to compliance with the existing provisions of the plan. Attachment 3 also establishes that the proposed change maintains an equivalent response level of the overall response capability. This submittal is consistent with discussions held during the July 11, 1995 meeting between Virginia Power and the NRC.
The continued cost of coverage for 30 minute responders is estimated to be more than two million dollars. Therefore, this change request meets the criteria for a Cost Beneficial Licensing Action. Furthermore, we have reviewed the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.54(q) and have found that this revision does not decrease the effectiveness of either plan because it does not change the concept of operations for activation of our radiological emergency response capability.
To facilitate your review, we are prepared to meet with you at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
~?~
James P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President - Nuclear
(
I I
I 9509120229 950906 PDR ADOCK 05000280
_____ E_ ____ -------*-
____.... _.,... P.DR.
Attachments,
re
/
1 ~ s.urry Emergency Plan - Page 5.13 and Table 5.1
- 2. North Anna Emergency Plan - Page 5.17 and Table 5.1
- 3. Justification for Proposed Plan Revision cc:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N. W.
Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. M. W. Branch NRC Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station Mr. R. D. McWhorter NRC Senior Resident Inspector North Anna Power Station