ML20082U259
| ML20082U259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082U258 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505040414 | |
| Download: ML20082U259 (3) | |
Text
.
- " fog}
y-t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RE0ULATORY COMMISSION f
WASWB"4 TON, D.C. 20066-0001
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NOS. 191 AND 172 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-4 AND NPF-7 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE NORTH ANNA POWER STATION. UNITS NO. 1 AND NO. 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-338 AND 50-339
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 27, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated September 6,1994, and March 7,1995, the Virginia Electric and Power Company-(the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the North Anna Power Station, Units No. I and No. 2 (NA-1&2).
Specifically, the proposed changes revise the review responsibilities of the Station Nuclear Safety'and Operating Committee (SNSOC) and the Management Safety Review Committee (MSRC).
The responsibilities of the SNSOC include the review of new procedures and changes to procedures that affect nuclear safety. The MSRC review responsibilites include the review of safety evaluations (SEs) and SNSOC meeting minutes and reports. The licensee has proposed that the extent af these review activities be revised in the TS to ensure the two review groups are focusing on nuclear safety issues and not spending an unnecessary amount of time on administrative activities of minimal safety significance.
The letters dated September 6, 1994, and March 7, 1995, provided additional information and did not affect 'the staff's initial proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration as' noticed in the Federal Reaister on February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7700).
An evaluation of the proposed changes is provided below.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposes to revise the current TS requirements (Sections 6.5.1.6.a. 6.8.1 and 6.8.2) that the SNSOC review all changes to normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures, and all maintenance procedures and changes thereto.. The proposed change would require the SNSOC to review only new normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures and all new maintenance procedures, and any procedure changes that require a safety evaluation.
l 9505040414 950502 PDR ADOCK 05000330 l
P PM
2 The licensee states that procedures undergo a screening process to determine L
whether a safety evaluation is required which determines whether a procedure goes to the SNSOC. The staff has reviewed the screening provisions described in VEPC0 Station Administrative Procedure VPAP-3001 and finds them acceptable.
VEPC0 also stated in their March 7, 1995 letter tt.at the screening process would be specified in their Operational Quality Assurance Program Topical l
Report (0QAPTR) and that procedure changes that do not require a safety evaluation must be approved by cognizant management and a senior reactor operator.
j Based on the screening process and procedure change approval by cognizant management and a senior reactor operator, the staff finds the proposed change to Section 6.5.1.6.a with respect to the review of procedures acceptable.
The licensee proposes to revise the current requirement (Sections 6.5.2.7.a and 6.5.2.7.1) that the MSRC shall be responsible for th'e review of safety evaluations for changes to procedures, equipment or systems and tests or experiments completed under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, to verify that such actions do not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
The proposed change would limit the MSRC review to samples of safety evaluations after 100%
review to select the most safety significant as programmatically discussed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The licensee will also continue to assess the effectiveness of the safety evaluation program.
The licensee, in their letter dated March 7,1995, stated that they will add to their 0QAPTR a statement that the MSRC will screen 100% of all safety evaluations for safety significance; and additionally do in-depth reviews of a sample of safety evaluations based on safety significance and a sampling plan criteria.
Based on the commitment for the MSRC to perform a 100% screening of safety evaluations and the performance of in-depth review of a sample of safety evaluations based on safety significance, the staff finds the requested change with respect to the MSRC review of safety evaluations acceptable.
The licensee proposes to delete the special requirements (Section 6.8.3) for the review and approval of temporary changes to procedures. These procedures would then be processed as all other procedures and procedure changes. The staff finds these changes acceptable as it does not diminish the level of review and approval of temporary procedures.
Finally, the licensee proposes to revise the Section 6.5.2.7.1 requirement that the MSRC review reports and meeting minutes of the SNS00.
The requirement would be revised to require reviewing only a representative sample of reports and meeting minutes of the SNSOC. The staff finds this change acceptable as it is consistent with the Improved Standard TS.
n-3 3.0
SUMMARY
The staff finds that the licensee's proposed changes meet the appropriate design criteria of Sections 13.4 and 13.5.1 of NUREG 0800, the Standard Review Plan, and are, therefore, acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Virginia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comment.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
F. Allenspach Date: May 2, 1995