ML20034B935
| ML20034B935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1990 |
| From: | Holahan G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034B931 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005010186 | |
| Download: ML20034B935 (3) | |
Text
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-In the Matter of SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, ET AL Docket No. 50-312 (RanchoSecoNuclearGenerating Station)
)
-EXEMPTION 1.
Section 50.71(e)(4) of 10 CFR 50 requires licensees of nuclear powers reactors to revise the Updated Safety Analysis Report'(USAR) at-least once a year. The USAR revisions shall reflect all changes up to.a maximum of-6 months prior to the date of filing the revision.
By letter dated September 25, 1989, the Sacramento Municipal Utility-District (SMUD,thelicensee),ownerandoperatoroftheRanchoSecoNuclear Generating Station, requested an exemption for submitting the next revision of the USAR until the time the decommissioning plan was submitted. Subsequent discussion between the NRC and SMUD resulted in the licensee requesting a.five month extension for submitting the next revision to the USAR. The next revision, Amendment 7, was due no later.than January 22,'1990. The licensee's request would extend the due date to no later than June 22, 1990. Subsequent revisions would be due on an annual schedule beginning on June 22, 1991.
ygRG5010186 900426 ALOCK 05000312 p
'J
- -a
e
- 2'-
1I.
The request for an extension of the submittal date for the USAR revision is based on the cessation of power operation at Rancho Seco on June 7, 1989, and the completion of defueling the reactor on December 8, 1989.' Defueling the reactor was the last major action associated with'a normal operational nuclear facility, and in an= effort to include all the mcdifications at Rancho ~
Seco relevant to a normal operational nuclear facility prior to the' licensee commencing Dermanent plant closure activities, the licensee requested the extension. Under the existing USAR revision schedule, a licensee submittal was due no later than January 22, 1990. Plant modifications, in place six months prior to the due date, are required to be addressed in the' submittal. As a result, a USAR update submittal. on January '22,1990,-would only have, included-a plant description and safety analysis that is current through June 22, 1989.
The last six months of 1989'were a period where modifications associated with a normal operational nuclear facility continued, including extensive modifications to the fuel handling equipment and a.ULAR update submittal on January 22,1990 -
would not have included these changes.
Based on the timing of the Rancho Seco plant modifications, the completion of defueling, and the licensee's decision to close the facility, the staff finds that there is good cause for the licensee's request for extension'of the next USAR revision. A revised USAR submitted on June 22, 1990, will address plant changes through December 1989 and should include the final versions of all modifications at Rancho Seco-as a normal cperational nuclear Facility.
The staff finds that the requested extension is acceptable.
')
J
O 1
2 3
-i F
For these reasons, the staff finds that the licensee has shown good cause for the requested extension for submittal of-Amendment 7 to the USAR.
Therefore, the requested extension to June 22, 1990 is acceptable.:
~
III; i
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), this exemption 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. The Commission further determines that special circumstances, 1
as provided in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present to justify the exemption, i
The. referenced special circumstances pertain to exemptions to regulations which do not alter the underlying purpose of the. regulations. Extending the a
due date for the next USAR update, under the circumstances described..does not-alter the underlying purpose of the requirement to maintain the USAR current.
1 Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants an exemption as described'in-Section II above from Section 50.71(e)(4) of 10 CFR Part 50 to extend the date i
for submittal of the next USAR revision to June 22, 1990.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will have no significant impact on the quality of the' human environment March 1, 1990, (55 FR 7393).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
N W
f Gary M. Holahan, Ac+.ing Director Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects
{
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland j
this 26 day of April 1990 i
u,,
y UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT.
~
DOCKET NO. 50-312 i,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF:
NO SMN(Fy ANT IMPACT L
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is-considering issuance of an exemption from'the schedular requirements of 10 CFR. 50.71(e)(4)..
to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD' the licensee), for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. located.in' Sacramento County, California.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed action.would grant an exemption from the. requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) to annually update the Rancho Seco Updated Safety Analy!;is -
Report (USAR). By letter dated September 25, 1989, SMUD. requested an extension for submitting the next revision to the USAR. The next revision, Amendment 7, would have been due no later than January 22, 1990. The SMUD request would extend the due date to no later than June 22, 1990. Subsequent.
revisions would be due on an> annual schedule beginning'on June 22, 1991.
The Need for.the Proposed Action:
1 i
The request for extension of the submittal date for the USAR revision is 1
i based on the permanent cessation of power operation at Rancho Seco on' June 7, 1989 and the completion of.defueling the reactor on December 8, 1989. 'Defuel-in9 is the last major action associated with an operating reactor, and in an-q effort to include all modifications at Rancho Seco relevant to an operating i
reactor the licensee requested an extension. Under the existing USAR revision.
schedule, a licensee submittal was required no later than January 22, 1990.
Plant modifications, in place six months prior to the due date, are required YO ODb bf
,w H
s to be addressed in the submittal. As a result, a USAR update submittal on 1
January 22, 1990, would have included a plant description and safety analysis l
which is current through June 22, 1989. The last six months of 1989 was a period where modifications associated with a normal operational' plant continued, including extensive modifications to the fuel handling systems and a USAR -
update submittal on January 22, 1990 would not have included the final plant d
status as a normal operational plant.
Environmental-Impact of the Proposed Action:
i
.The proposed exemption affects only the required date for submitting the 4
s USAR revision and does not affect the risk of facility accidents. Plant i
nodifications completed during the period which would have been encompassed l
by the normal submittal schedule were evaluated independently by the utility l
l and reviewed by the NRC staff. The. post-accident radiological releases will not differ from those determined previously, and the proposed exemption does not otherwise affect facility radiological effluents, or any significant occupational exposures. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed exemption does not affect plant non-radiological effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Comission concludes there are no measurable radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption. 'Since the Comission 'has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternatives either will have no environmental impact or will i
have a greater environmental impact. The principal alternative to the i
exemption would be to require an earlier date for submittal of the USAR. Such an action would not enhance the protection of the environment and would result in unnecessary drain of licensee and Commission resources.
q 9
j i
7590001 Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources not considered previously in the Final Environmental Statement for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.
Age'ncies and Persons Consulted:-
1
.The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT:
The Commission has determined not t>> prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption. Based upon'the environmental assessment, the NRC staff ' concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 25, 1989, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the Martin Luther King Regional Library, 7340 24th Street Bypass, Sacramento, California 95822.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this22nd day of February
, 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
1 Harry Ro, Acting Director Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects 111, r
IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation h
4
.