ML010040532
| ML010040532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 02/02/2001 |
| From: | Harris P NRC/NRR/DLPM |
| To: | Redeker S Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) |
| Harris P, NRR/DLPM, 415-1169 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB0592 | |
| Download: ML010040532 (5) | |
Text
February 2, 2001 Mr. Steve J. Redeker, Manager Plant Closure & Decommissioning Sacramento Municipal Utility District 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, CA 95638-9799
SUBJECT:
RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 194 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. MB0592)
Dear Mr. Redeker:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) submitted Proposed License Amendment No. 194 for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on October 23, 2000. NRC staff are currently reviewing your proposed amendment and have determined that additional information is required to complete this review.
As discussed with your staff by telephone on December 5, 2000, NRC has prepared a Request for Additional Information (RAI) which is enclosed with this letter. Please assure that your response to this RAI is performed under Oath or Affirmation.
Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact me at 301-415-1169.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Paul W. Harris, Project Manager Decommissioning Section Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-312
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
February 2, 2001 Mr. Steve J. Redeker, Manager Plant Closure & Decommissioning Sacramento Municipal Utility District 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, CA 95638-9799
SUBJECT:
RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 194 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. MB0592)
Dear Mr. Redeker:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) submitted Proposed License Amendment No. 194 for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on October 23, 2000. NRC staff are currently reviewing your proposed amendment and have determined that additional information is required to complete this review.
As discussed with your staff by telephone on December 5, 2000, NRC has prepared a Request for Additional Information (RAI) which is enclosed with this letter. Please assure that your response to this RAI is performed under Oath or Affirmation.
Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact me at 301-415-1169.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Paul W. Harris, Project Manager Decommissioning Section Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-312
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter PDIV-3 r/f RidsRgn4MailCenter RidsNrrDlpm(SBlack) RidsNrrDlpmLpdiv3(MMasnik)
LBerry RidsNrrPMPHarris RidsOgcRp RidsNrrLACJamerson ACCESSION NO. ML010040532 NRR-088 OFFICE PDIV-D/PM PDIV-D/LA PDIV-D/SC NAME PHarris:jc MMcAllister for CJamerson DWheeler for MMasnik DATE 01/03/01 12/20/00 02/01/01 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station cc: Mr. Ed Bailey, Radiation Program Director Radiologic Health Branch Mr. Richard Ferreira State Department of Health Services Assistant General Manager - Energy P. O. Box 942732 (MS 178)
Supply & Chief Engineer Sacramento, CA 94327-7320 Sacramento Municipal Utility District P.O. Box 15830 - Mail Stop 41 Mr. Robert A. Laurie, Commissioner Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street (MS 31)
Thomas A. Baxter, Esq. Sacramento, CA 95814 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Cindy Buchanan, Site Document Washington, D.C. 20037 Control Supervisor Sacramento Municipal Utility District Mr. Jerry Delezenski Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Quality & Compliance 14440 Twin Cities Road Superintendent Herald, CA 95638-9799 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco Nuclear Station 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, CA 95638-9799 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Sacramento County Board of Supervisors 700 H Street, Suite 2450 Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Dana Appling, General Counsel Sacramento Municipal Utility District P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 Mr. Steve Hsu Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services P. O. Box 942732 Sacramento, CA 94327-7320 February 2000
RANCHO SECO PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 194 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.a Rancho Seco proposes to delete the description for SITE BOUNDARY in PDTS (Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications) D1.5 (definitions), however, you propose to maintain the title SITE BOUNDARY in the PDTS Index, page DI-1. The staff notes that this proposed change may be confusing. Consider whether replacing the D1.5 title, SITE BOUNDARY, page DI-1, with the word Deleted, clarifies the proposed change.
1.b Rancho Seco proposes to delete the description for SITE BOUNDARY in PDTS D1.5 (definitions), however, you propose to maintain the title SITE BOUNDARY in PDTS D1.5, page D1-2. The staff notes that this proposed change may be confusing.
Consider whether replacing the D1.5 title, SITE BOUNDARY, with the word Deleted, to correspond to item 1.a above.
2.a Rancho Seco proposes to delete the description for UNRESTRICTED AREA in PDTS D1.13 (definitions), however, you propose to maintain the title UNRESTRICTED AREA, in the PDTS Index, page DI-1. The staff notes that this proposed change may be confusing. Consider whether a complete deletion of Index item PDTS D1.13 (with a change bar placed in the margin) clarifies the proposed change.
2.b. Rancho Seco proposes to delete the description for UNRESTRICTED AREA in PDTS D1.13 (definitions), however, you propose to maintain PDTS D1.13 and the title UNRESTRICTED AREA on page D1-3. The staff notes that this proposed change may be confusing. Consider whether a complete deletion of D1.13 on page D1.13 (with a change bar placed in the margin) clarifies your proposed change.
- 3. The error bar specifying a proposed change to D5.2 SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES on page D5-1 appears to be on the wrong line. Resubmit the affected page correcting the location of the error bar. The staff notes that Attachment 3 to your proposed license amendment should be an exact representation of what would be incorporated into your PDTSs if the proposed amendment was approved.
- 4. The dot leaders on your submitted Index pages of your proposed amendment are not equivalent to that in your currently approved PDTS. Justify the proposed changes in the dot leaders on your submitted Index pages (e.g., the dot leader changes are administrative in nature etc.). The staff notes that Attachment 3 to your proposed license amendment should be an exact representation of what would be incorporated into your PDTSs if the proposed amendment was approved.
- 5. Proved a short description stating whether or not your proposed change would (1) foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (2) result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed, or (3) result in there no longer being reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for decommissioning.
- 6. In Section D6.8.3a.(8) of the PDTS, the phrase from the site was deleted, however, this proposed change was not justified. Justify this proposed change or resubmit a corrected PDTS page and state that the phrase was deleted in error.
- 7. Your proposed amendment states that definitions and figures proposed for deletion from the PDTS are equivalent and in some cases identical to figures and definitions contained in other licensee controlled documents referenced in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR). However, there are differences between the figures and definitions proposed for deletion from the PDTS and the equivalent or identical figures and definitions referenced in the SAR (e.g., the figures in Attachments 5 and 6 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual have less information than PDTS Figures D5.1-2 and D5.1-3 proposed for deletion). Justify any and all informational differences between the PDTS figures and definitions proposed for deletion and the figures and definitions already contained in documents that you propose to justify the PDTS deletion on. The staff notes that there is a distinct difference between removing information from the PDTS because it is equivalently contained in other licensee-controlled documents and deleting information from the PDTS.