ML20206G422
| ML20206G422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206G420 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704140548 | |
| Download: ML20206G422 (2) | |
Text
..
p ucg'o,
[f
[j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
+
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r,,
E SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 92 AND 77 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 INTRODUCTION By letter dated November 25,1986 (Serial No.86-723), the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) proposed a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the North Anna Power Station, Units No. I and No. 2 (NA-1821.
Specifically, the proposed change would modify TS 3/4.12 (Radiological Monitoringi to reflect established practices, to agree with NRC approved documents, and to conform to NRC regulatory guidance.
DISCUSSION The proposed changes to the NA-182 TS will correct an administrative error in Table 4.12-1, paragraph 2.c.
This table lists the sample point for offsite monitoring to be 15 to 30 kilometers from the site. This specification came in existence when the radiological portion of the Environmental TS were incorporated into the plant TS (Amendrent 48 to Unit I and Amendment 31 to Unit 2).
The original Environmental TS listed eight locations for continuous airborne sampling. There was 1 at the site, 3 on the site perimeter, 3 in nearby communities and I at the Orange District Office. These locations are also specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM) in accordance with TS requirements.
The ODCM lists site 2A, the " Control" monitor at the Orange District Office, as being "22 miles" (35.4 km) from the site. This monitoring site was placed in service in December 1976 as a control location for the North Anna Station and has provided the station with a well-established 10 year base of sampling data. The location is secure from vandalism and assures a stable power source.
In order to correct this discrepancy, TS Table 4.12-1 paragraph 2.c will be changed to read "I sample from a control location 15-40 kilometers distant and in the least prevalent wind direction." The change will also bring the TS into agreement with the ODCM which has been approved by the NRC.
8704140548 870331
(
PDR ADOCK 05000338 P
Table 4.1?-2 of the NA-1&2 TS lists a reporting level of 30,000 pCi/ liter for This is to be changed to 20,000 pCi/ liter in accordance with NUREG-0472, H.
In R$diological Effluent Technical Specifications for PWRs, Revision 3.
addition there is a footnote being added which specifies the sample to be Table 4.12-3 of the NA-1&2 TS 3/4.17.1 lists a tower Limit of Detectability tested.
(LLD) for High Resolution Ge(Lil Gama Spectroscopy Environmental sample of 10 pCi/ liter for I and an LLO of 3000 pCi/ liter for H. These are to be changedto1pC1/l}NrforI and 2000 for H., in accor$ance with NUREG-047P, Radiological Effluent TechniNl Specifications-for PWRs, Revision 3.
- Finally, a footnote is being deleted from Table 4.12-3 which specifies that "The LLD for A footnote being added to Table e.IP-2 Gama isotopic analysis shall be used."
and 4.1?-3 will state that "The LLD value is for drinking water samples."
EVALUATION The proposed chance to NA-182 TS Table 4.12.1 corrects a discrepancy present1v existing in the TS and brings the NA-182 TS into agreement with the NRC acoroved Offsite Dose Calculational Manual. The proposed changes to the NA-11.E TS j
Tables 4.12-2 and 4.12-3 impose a more restrictive reouirement which is in confonnance with NtfREG-0A72 Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for PWRs, Revision 3.
Based on the above, we find the proposed changes to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
l The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previous 1v published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR $51.22(c1(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that fli there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety o' the public.
Date:
March 31, 1987 Principal Contributor:
L. R. Engle
_