ML20029B670

Exemption from 10CFR50-54(q) Requirements Re Offsite Emergency Preparedness That Provides Reactor Shutdown & Changes Long Term Defueled Condition

ML20029B670
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	02/22/1991
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
Shared Package
ML20029B665	List: ML20029B670 ML20029B672 ML20029B675
References
NUDOCS 9103140058
Download: ML20029B670 (7)

Text

--

lfNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

)

Docket No. 50-312

)

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

)

Station

)

EXEMPTION 1.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No OPR-54, which authorizes operation of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (the facility) at steady-state reactor power levelt not in excess (,7 2772 megawatts thermal.

The license states, among 0+her tnings, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations and Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) now or hereaf ter in ef fect.

The facility consists of a pressurized water reactor located at the licensee's site in Sacramento, California.

The facility is currently shut down and defueled.

In a letter dated September 20, 1990, as amended in a letter dated December 20, 1990, the licensee submitted a request for exemption from certain provisions of emergency preparedness as required by 10 CFR 50.54(q).

II.

Section 50.54(q) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires a licensee authorized to possess and operate a nuclear power reactor to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements 9103140058 910222 PDR ADOCK 05000312 F

PDR

_ - _ _ = _

i i

l of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

Section 50.47(b) provides that both offsite and onsite emergency plans must meet the standards specified in subparagraphs (1) through (16) of 10 CFR 50.47(b).

With respect to offsite emergency prepared-ness, SMUD states that an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(q) is necessary because, 4

with the proposed cessation of offsite response capability for Rancho Seco, SMUD will no longer meet the standards for offsite preparedness that are listed in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

In particular, SMUD will not meet the standards for offsite preparedness because under the proposed 4

Change 4 of the Rancho Seco Emergency Plan, "Long Term Defueled Condition" (referred to as the Emergency Plan (EP) in this document), the Emergency Operations Facility and the Emergency News Center will be eliminated, and the i

Emergency Response Organization (ERO) staffing for offsite support by SMUD, coordination with Amador and San Joaquin Counties, and SMUD's maintenance of systems for alerting members of the public will-also be deleted from the plan.

The NRC may grant exemptions f rom the re0Jirements of the regulations which, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), are authorized by law, will not present 1

an undue risk to the.public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security.

Further, 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) provides that the Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present.

At least two of the special circumstances listed under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) apply to Rancho Seco's situation:

4 j

. (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.

l

)

4

}..

,..,v,,

.w..

,,m,,.

-.m.

.s

~...

.,. _ *.. - -.. ~., -.,,. _,.. - _,.

.. ~..

_ _. _ _. _ _.. ~

~ _ _ _ _ -

f (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are A

significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.

i i

1 By letter dated September 20, 1990, as amended by letter dated December 20, 1990, the licensee requested an exemption from the emergency preparedness i

requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) based on the facility's shutdown and defueled condition.

Rancho Seco was shut down on June 7, 1989.

The licensee indicated that the potential risk to the public was significantly reduced and the range of credible accidents and accident consequences were limited for a shutdown and defueled Rancho Seco.

The worst case accident for this facility is the dropping of a loaded spent fuel shipping cask.

The NRC staff has independently calculated the offsite dose resulting from a fuel handling accident using the assumptions and parameters in the j

standard review plan, the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) and the licensee's submittal.

The NRC staff's an91ysis indicated that at 100 meters, which is the Protected Area boundary and proposed EPZ boundary, the two t

3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> whole body gamma dose and thyroid dose would be 2.20 and 2.8 x 10 mrem respectively.

The licensee's two hour calculated doses at 100 meters were 13.1 mrem and 2.7 x 10'4 mrem for whole body and for the thyroid, respectively.

These values are a small fraction of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Action Guidelines of one to five rem whole body gamma dose I

from exposure to airborne radioactive materials, and five to twenty-five rem i

thyroid dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive material.

Under the

.,,,._.e,.y%%_,...,wm y

ry,g,,,_,,.,_w,,,,,,#%.g.w.,m,.

.,,mg,,,,=,

,,,,_m,mm,.%.n,,,,,.,,y,,

y c.%

g,,__,.,,.,,,..y.y.,

.w.,w.-g

general guidelines defining emergency classifications in NUREG-0654/FEHA-REP-1, Revision 1. " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Procedures in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," dated November 1980, as well as the nature of the accident, the facility would not be in an emergency situation in which the result would be classified greater than an Alert.

Under these circumstances, the staff believes that the offsite emergency response plan is not required.

The staff took this finding into consideration while reviewing the proposed EP based on the acceptance criteria included in the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b), and NUREG-0654.

The NRC staff has reviewed the EP, based on the acceptance criteria included in the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b), the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and the guidance criteria of NUREG-0654.

The NRC staff also reviewed the EP based on the requirements of 10 CFR r".47(d) for a license authorizing only fuel loading and low power testing.

The requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(d) address the lower risk associated with low power operation and are generally appropriate for reviewing the offsite aspects of the EP.

Based on this review, the Commission has concluded that the Rancho Seco EP provides an acceptable emergency preparedness plan for Rancho Seco in its non-operating and defueled condition, and the plan provides reasonable assuranco that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Rancho Seco.

The licensee's request for exemption, based on the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, is reasonable in light of the highly reduced offsite radiological risk associated with Rancho Seco's shut iwn and defueled condition.

The requested exemption, is (1) authorized by law, is consistent with the common l

defense and security, and will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and (2) presents special circumstances.

IV.

Regarding the existence of special circumstances which justify the exemption, 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) applies to Rancho Seco's situation.

For operating nuclear plants, emergency planning is essential to safety and the NRC's emergency planning regulations exist to ensure that adequate protective measures can and will be taken to protect the public health and safety in the

)

event of a radiological emergency.

The Commission concurs in SMUD's analysis that no credible accident can occur that would require emergency preparedness actions offsite and thus adversely impact public health and safety.

Considering the defueled condition at Rancho Seco, requiring SMUD to continue tu meet the full range of HRC's emergency planning regulations is not necessary in order to achieve the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(q).

With the level of emergency preparedness provided by the EP, SMUD will be fully capable of responding adequately to the spectrum of credible accidents that could occur at Rancho seco in its defueled condition.

Section 50.12(a)(2)(iii) also is applicable in these circumstances.

The current regulations governing the requirements for the emergency response program do not contemplate plants that are shut down and defueled.

For plants in this-situation, compliance with these regulations presents an unwarranted hardship.

SMUD aust spend significant resources and effort to maintain the current level of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness to respond to accident scenarios i

that can only occur at an operating plant and cannot credibly occur at Rancho l

6-Seco in the shutdown and defueled state.

These resources include f acilities, support equipment, as well as personnel training, and annual exercises and drills.

By operating a smaller emergency response program, limited to onsite emergency preparedness, SMUD will reduce its costs significantly without impacting safety.

Without the exemption, SMUD must carry significantly higher costs than other plants that have received relief similar to that requested by SMUD.

With an exemption, SMUD would be excused from those costs associated with compliance to inapplicable or unnecessary requirements of the regulation.

Thus, continuing the current EP program, without the exemption, would constitutt-an undue hardship on the licensee.

V.

For thest reasons, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, (1) the exemption requested by SMUD's letter dated September 20, 1990, as amended December 20, 1990, is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security, and (2) special circumstances are present as described above.

Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the following exemption:

The Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station is exempt from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) in regard to offsite emergency response for emergency preparedness, provided that (1) the reactor is shut down and defueledi and (2) the Rancho Seco Nuclear Emergency Plan, "Long Term Defueled Condition" is implemented.

This Exemption will remain in effect unless and until revoked by the Commission.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Comission has determined that the granting of this Exempticn will have no significant impact on the environment (56 FR 7421, dated February 22, 1991).

This exemption is effective upon issuance.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI$$ ION Denn??/hk.

I S's is H. Crutchfield, tect r Division of Advanced R(actors and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of February 1991.

i

_ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -