ML20042F139
| ML20042F139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1990 |
| From: | Keuter D SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Larkins J NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042F140 | List: |
| References | |
| AGM-NUC-90-114, NUDOCS 9005070275 | |
| Download: ML20042F139 (5) | |
Text
e GMUD SAQRAMENTo MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT C 6201 S Street, P.o. Box 15830, Sacramento CA95852 1830 (916) 462-3211 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA "AGM/NUC 90-114 April 26, 1990 U. S. Huclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control' Desk Hashington, DC 20555 Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-54 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 184 Attention: John Larkins In accordance with 10 CFR 50.90, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District proposes to amend Operating License DPR-54 for Rancho Seco and therefore submits Proposed Amendment No. 184.
Proposed Amendment No.184 proposes to modify the License to a " Possession Only License" where the District is authorized to possess special nuclear material, but_not operate the nuclear reactor.- Recommended text is shown on Enclosure II.
Details of the proposed amendment are presented in the No Significant Hazards I
Consideration (Enclosure I) of this submittal'.
j Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.92 (b)(1), the Radiological Health Branch of California i
State Department of Health Services has been informed of this proposed-i amendment by mailed-copy of this submittal.
It is requested that this proposed amendment become effective with approval of Proposed Amendment 182, Revision 1.
Members of your staff with questions requiring additional information or clarification may contact Steve Crunk at (209) 333-2935, extension 4913.
i l
9005070275 900426 PDR ADOCK 05000312 80 I'(
P PDC i
RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION C 14440 Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638 9799: (209I 333 2935
4 John Larkins AGM/NUC 90-114 State of California SS County of Sacramento Dan R. Keuter, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
that he is Assistant General Manager, Nuclear of Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the licensee herein; that he has executed the foregoing document; that the statements made in this document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, and that he is authorized to execute this document on behalf of said licensee.
Ob7 Dan R. Keuter k
Assistant General Manager Nuclear Subscribed and affirmed to before me on this M day of O O !
1990.
og;cusa chaciMUJmdow b-~ -~ wes.1[D,i o
1 i
Traci L. Gordon e
T.?E*70,,, l Notary Public Enclosures cc w/ encl:
J. B. Martin, NRC, Walnut Creek A. D'Angelo, NRC, Rancho Seco California Department of Health Services
Page 1 of 3 DESCRIPTION:
2.B.(1)
Delete "use and operate" from facility activities.
2.B.(2)
Rephrase this section to allow the possession but not use of special nuclear material as reactor f uel.
2.C.(1)
Remove the authorization to operate the facility.
2.C.(2)
Require facility operation in accordance with Technical Specifications Appendix C, the Defueled Mode Technical Specifications.
2.C.(3)
Reflect the submittal of the April 30, 1990 Security Plan.
2.C.(4)
Replace current text with suggested wording from Proposed Amendment 180.
2.C.(8)
Delete the program for airborne iodine monitoring.
2.C.(9)
Delete the program to ensure the capability to accurately monitor the Reactor Coolant System subcooling margin since this program is not applicable based on non-operation of the reactor.
2.C.(11)
Delete the requirement to inspect the C and D HPI nozzles.
2.C.(13)
Add a statement prohibiting the movement of nuclear fuel into the reactor building without prior NRC approval.
2.0 Replace the reference to Technical Specifications Appendix B with a reference to the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.
l
Page 2 of 3 4
?
REASON FOR CHANGES:
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District has permanently ceased its operation of Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.
The District requests that the Operating License be modified to a " Possession Only License" where the District is authorized to possess special nuclear material, but not to operate the nuclear reactor.
This Possession Only License will establish the basis for increased regulatory relief until a final Decommissioning Plan is submitted and approved.
EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR SAFETY FINDINGS:
This Proposed Amendment places additional restrictions on the activities allowed under the current Operating License for Rancho Seco.
These restrictions prevent further nuclear power operation of the unit, or the movement of new or spent fuel into the reactor building without specific Commission approval.
However, the amendment does not prohibit other activities under the present License.
This Proposed Amendment will not decrease the protection of the public health and safety.
0 l
l l
l 9
e -w e
Page 3 of 3 WO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION This Proposed Amendment to the facility Operating License prohibits operation of the Rancho Seco reactor at any power level.
The District has no intention of taking the reactor critical again.
Existing analyses address potential accident scenarios from a reactor shutdown condition through power operation.
Maintaining the fuel suberitical results in an increase in margins of safety i
from an accident analysis standpoint.
No new accidents or failure modes are created by maintaining the reactor in the defueled mode.
The District has reviewed this Proposed Amendment against each of the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92 and concludes that this amendment wottid not:
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated since it imposes additional operation restrictions while not modifying the present plant protection systems and controls necessary to preserve and protect the integrity of the spent fuel and spent fuel pool; or V
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated since it does not modify the facility or permit activities of a different kind than those that are presently allowed; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since it allows no new activities, and adds additional conservative restrictions on plant operations.
Therefore, the District concludes that Proposed Amendment 184 involves no significant hazards consideration.
l l
l l
l l