ML19327C047
| ML19327C047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1989 |
| From: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 89-667, NUDOCS 8911150154 | |
| Download: ML19327C047 (2) | |
Text
i VIRGINIA EurTRIC AND POWl:R COMPANY
{
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 2
November 7, 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial No.:
89-667 Attention: Document Control Desk NL/DEO RS Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket Nos.: 50 338 50 339 i
License Nos.: NPF 4 NPF 7 Gentlemen:
VIRGINIA ELECTRIQ AND POWER COMPANY NORTN ANNA POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 EMERGENCY PLAN STAFF AUGMENTATION TIMES r
On November 30,1988 (Serial No. 88 662A), Virginia Electric and Power Company requested approvalin accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q) of proposed changes to the North Anna Emergency Plan.
The proposed changes would revise the staff augmentation times and minimum staffing levels specified in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 of the plan. Although we determined that the proposed changes were consistent with our 3revious commitments, the changes were submitted to NRC for approval prior to i
Implementation because the proposed changes could be viewed as reducing plan effectiveness.
By letter dated September 8,1989, we were notified that the proposed changes were unacceptable because they were inconsistent with the NRC definition of an acceptable l
program as described in 10 CFR 50.47(b), NUREG 0654, Table B 1 and Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737, Table 2.
We were advised not to continue to implement the changes deemed inconsistent and to correct the plan as necessary within 60 days to t
maintain plan continuity. The wordin0 of the NRC response appeared to indicate that l
NRC believed that the proposed changes had already been implemented, it is important to clarify that the North Anna Emergency Plan was act revised to reflect l
the proposed changes described in our November 30,1988 letter, nor were the i
proposed changes implemented. The proposed changes were forwarded to NRC for review and approval prior to implementation. Since that request was submitted, only i
l one revision to the emergency plan has subsequently been implemented by Virginia L
Electric and Power Com3any. The NRC was notified of that change by letter dated October 30,1989 (Seria No. 89 761). That change was evaluated and determined not to reduce the effectiveness of the emergency plan and, therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), did not require NRC approval prior to implementation.
Examples of that change include rewording sections of the plan for clarity, reformatting sections to improve readability, and removing unnecessary and ambiguous information.
That Emergency Plan revision also reflected additional training f$MlooSkbbob F
requirements. However, in our October 30,1989 revision submittal, it was not explained that these training enhancements were scheduled to be implemented during the 1990 training cycle.
As noted in your September 8,1989 letter, we are evaluating a!!ernatives to the current methodology required by the plan for staff augmentation and response times.
One issue in particular is the concern regarding timeliness of staff augmentation onsite. Pending completion of our evaluations and subsequent management approval and implementation, we have increased staffing of cedain onsite positions. This action ensures that a sufficient number of personnel are onsite to meet the 30 minute minimum staffing requirements and that full compliance with the current Nonh Anna Emergency Plan manning requirements is achieved.
Should you have any questions or require additionalinformation, please contact us i'
immediately.
Very truly yours, 9
/ @*
W. L. Stewan Senior Vice President Nuclear oc:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region ll 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. J. L. Caldwell NRC Senior Resident inspector North Anna Power Station L
I 1
l A
'