ML19260E124
| ML19260E124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260E123 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130404 | |
| Download: ML19260E124 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION HAROLD R. DENTON, DIRECTOR In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-338/339 Virginia Electric and Pwer Company
)
and 50-280/281 (North Anna Pwer Station, Units 1 and 2 )
Surry Pwer Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 62.206 By letter dated April 5,1979, Mrs. June Allen, on behalf of the North Anna Environmental Coalition (Coalition),' requested that the Nuclear Regulatv/ r ~ission r:'icke the oterating licenses of the Virginia c
Electric and Pwer Company's (VEPCC) North Anna Power Station and Surry Pwer Station, and reverse ny decision of February 1,1979, denying the Coalition's request for a pub?'- hearing and envi ronmental impact state-ment on the Surry Stean Generator Eepair Progran.
The Comission referred Mrs. Allen's letter to the staff for treatment pursuant to 10 CFR 2.2C6 of the Comission's regulations.
The asserted bases for the recuest by the Coalition are (1) that in having just learned on March 23, 1978, that Westinghouse had discovered an error in its emergency core cooling system (ECCS) analysis, the NRC should not have licensed North Anna Unit 1 a few days later on April 1, 1978; (2) that the NRC staff should have acted more promptly on its December 5,1978 Seabrook Board Notification concerning inadequate capacity in the refueling water storage tank and a similar potential occurrence at Morth kna; and (3) condenser defects are causing serious steam generator deterioration.
8 00 213 0 4<4
. Mrs. Allen's concern related to the metal-water reaction error in the Westinghouse ECCS model was discussed in detail in an expanded chronology which was forwarded to Mrs. Allen by letter dated October 31, 1979 from Secretary Chilk. This letter adequately explained that the fiorth Anna Plant was properly reviewed and no further discussion is considered to be necessary here.
Mrs. Allen stated that the NRC staff should have acted more promptly to notify the Boards in the case of the inadequate capacity of the refueling water storage tank (RWST) at Seabrook and the potential for a similar situation at North Anna.
The Boards are notified whenever new information could reasonabl. be regarded as putting a new or different light upon an issue before a Board.
The ?:RC staff is committed to a policy of notifying affected Boards in a timely manner when a safety issue related to matters before them is raised.
In the case of North Anna, only two issues remained before the Appeal Board, neither of which was related to capacity of the RWST.
Nevertheless, the staff did not drcp this matter.
The staff evaluated the North Anna RWST and concluded tnat the same problem did not exist.
A cursory lock at the Seabrook situation and the North Anna RWST capacity as discussed in the North Anna Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) readily sncws that the problem that develo:ec at Seabrook does not exist at Pforth Anna.
The Seabrook RMST, at 375,000 gallons, had only a 1,000
. gallon margin when, as a minimum to allow for measurement errors, transfer times and a single failure, it needed an additional margin of 62,000 to adequately provide for the demands of the injection and recirculation mode following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).
North Anna, on the cther hand, had a much larger RWST with a capacity of 450,0C'] gallons.
Based on a LOCA demand of 386,000 gallons as stated in the existing FSAR, it had a margin of 64,000 gallons. The staff believes that the RWST volume is adequate for injection and transfer modes of cooling following a LOCA. Thus, although Board notification was not mandatory, the 'iRC staff satisfied itself that the issue raised at Seabrook was not significant at florth Anna.
Mrs. Allen also suggested that the Corrission investigate the role of condenser defects in causii;g serious steam generator deterioration and to explore contradictory views regarding the role of a leaking condenser.
It is not the staff's position that condenser leakage is nc: im;ortant.
My letter to Mrs. Allen dated July 21, 1979, discusses the -elationship of condenser leakage to steam generator deterioration, and concludes that condenser leakage should be minimized.
The letter also states that steam generator deterioration ray result from causes cther than condenser leakage. The steam generator repair program is Stended to eliminate or minimize steam generatcr deterioration from causes other than condenser leakage.
Mcwever, we are stressing the nee: to aintain a close watch on secondary water chenistry to minimize the concentration of impurities which may result f r condenser leaks.
. Based on the foregoing discussion and the provisions of 10 CFR 2.206, I have determined that there exists no adequate basis for revoking the operating licenses for North Anna and Surry, nor for reversing ry decision regarding holding a Show Cause hearing on the steam generator repair program and preparing an environmental impact statement. The request of the North Anna Environmental Coalition is hereby denied.
A copy of this decision will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
- 20555, the Local Public Document Room for Surry Power Station located at the Swem Library, College of William anc Mary, Willi.amsburg, Virginia 23185, and the Local Public Document Rooms for North Anna Power Station located at the Alderman Library, Maruscripts Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 and the Board of Superviscr's Office, '_ouisa County Courthouse, Lcuisa, Virginia 23093.
A copy of this decision will also be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for its review in accordance with 10 CFR s2.2C6(c) of the Conmission's regulations.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.2C6(c) of the Commission's regulations, this decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 20 days after the date of issuance, unless the Commission on its own motion institutes the review of this decisicn within that time.
41Nk Marold R. Denton, Di rector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of December,1979