ML20245F126
| ML20245F126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1989 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Carr, Roberts, Rogers NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908140165 | |
| Download: ML20245F126 (8) | |
Text
p.
is, o
" #, e
% gets (y
- f,,<
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,g
- k WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 AtlG 0 91999 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner. Rogers Commissioner Curtiss L
- FROM:
James.M. Taylor Acting Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RANCHO SECO STATUS UPDATE By SRM dated June-19, 1989, the staff was requested ~to' keep the Comission apprised of developments at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station follow-
.ing. the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) ratepayers' vote on June 6,
.1989,'to close Rancho Seco. The June 6, 1989, voters' referendum was preceded by plant. closure campaigns led by national anti-nucigar groups and pro-operation campaigns conducted primarily by Rancho Seco employees and local business interests. Voters appeared to focus primarily on the issue _ of rising utility rates and well-publicized' examples of past mismanagement by SMUD. Both the plant closure groups and the pro-operation groups made future utility rates the central issue in their' campaigns and both claimed that their programs would result in the lower utility. rates.
Forty-one percent of the 519,000 eligible voters voted 53 to 47 percent to close the plant. On June 7, 1989, Rancho Seco was shut down.
On June 20, 1989, during the first post-election meeting, the SMliD Board of Directors engaged in a' debate over the interpretation of the voters' referendum. Did the voters indicate that Rancho Seco should not be operated by SMUD (sale and operation by others permissible) or did the referendum require decommissioning of Rancho Seco? 'This issue was resolved by a board vote:
three of the five board members voted that the referendum permits sale and restart of Rancho Seco.
During the meeting of June 20, 1989, Director C. Wilcox proposed to open a 10-day window of opportunity for submission of bids for Rancho Seco. The.
board members recognized that any attempt to sell the plant would be challenged in court on the basis of the ambiguity of the closure referendum.
To. forestall legal challenges, the board decided to initiate a new referendum to be voted on in November 1989. The new referendum'would ask ratepayers whether Rancho Seco should be decommissioned or sold and returned to operation.
CONTACT:
G.-Kalman, NRR 49-21367
[N W
8900140165 890009 sj PDR COMMS NRCC
' CORRESPONDENCE PDR
1 The Commission At the end of the 10-day bid window (June 30,1989), a purchase offer was received from Quadrex Corporation (William Derrickson, Chairman) and four 3
separate proposals from companies that proposed to convert Rancho Seco to a j
fossil-fuel plant. General Atomics also responded with a letter expressing i
I serious interest in purchasing Rancho Seco but requested a 30-day extension of the bid period.. The Board of Directors instructed their staff to evaluate the Quadrex offer; however, Quadrex was not granted exclusive bargaining status.
The Rancho Seco staff is proceeding with defueling and decommissioning planning in accordance with the post-election directive from General Manager David Boggs.
It appears that this directive will remain in effect at least until the November l
1989 referendum. Staff-reduction measures have already been initiated. The
)
closure plan includes a staff reduction from 1600 to 1000 employees through I
completion of reactor defueling in November 1989 and a further reduction to 600 employees following defueling. The two senior plant managers have left SMUD for employment elsewhere. The SMUD staff is preparing a license submittal to the NRC to simplify existing technical specification requirements commen-surate with the safety concerns associated with a defueled plant. Maintenance and surveillance of equipment have been limited to those systems necessary to defuel the reactor and to maintain the plant safely in cold shutdown. Contracts and engineering efforts to upgrade or modify the plant have been suspended.
The NRC staff is evaluating the SMUD closure process and has not identified any short-term safety concerns with the licensee's plan or with the progress of that effort to date. A combined NRR/ Region V Task Force visited the site on June 15,.1989 to evaluate site conditions after the shutdown vote and to discuss plant closure plans with site managers.
Initial staff concerns about the instability of site management and licensed operators were somewhat decreased by SMUD's presentation of a relatively conservative approach to reactor defueling and eventual transition to the decommissioning mode, SAFSTOR. Renegotiated contracts with managers, operators, and other specialists included financial incentives to retain key personnel through the more complex phases of plant closure and decommissioning.
In the cold shutdown mode, the licensee has considerable regulatory latitude with regard to eq"Jpment operability, surveillance, and maintenance. Technical specification action statements associated with inoperable (e.g., no longer main-tained) equipment typically require the plant to transition to cold shutdown.
l In the cold shutdown mode, regulatory oversight is focused on public safety issues that continue to exist when the reactor is in this relatively benign l
condition. However, the licensee holds a full power operating license and any i
changes in conformance to license conditions or regulation requirements must be approved by NRC and changes from FSAR requirements must follow the 10 CFR 50.59 process. Before NRC has approved decommissioning (while the licensee holds an operating license) the licensee may not simply, through neglect, let the plant deteriorate.
NRC inspection and licensing activities at Rancho Seco have been reduced but will continue at a level commensurate with plant conditions. Specific remaining i
l
The Commission '
staff concerns include SMUD's ability to safely disassemble and defuel t'ne reactor, potential destructive acts by disgruntled employees, and continued need for stringent control of radioactive liquid effluents to the arid offsite environment around Rancho Seco. The level of staff concern may increase substantially if the present plant operating budget were reduced by the SMUD Board of Directors. There is no indication that such action is planned.
If SMUD negotiations with potential buyers are fruitful, the staff would be ready to respond to a request for license transfer. However, it is not ant Pfpated that SMUD will initiate any changes to the present decommissioning directive until after the November referendum.
The Rancho Seco closure schedule includes plans to apply for a Possession Only License by December 1989.
The Staff plans to meet with the licensee this month to get a better appreci-ation of its plans for preservation of the facility, pending the submittal of a decommissioning plan and pending NRC authorization to decommission the facility.
0+9e1 Sigr.ed bi Hugh L Thompson, Jr.
hesM. Taylor Acting Executive Director for Operations cc: SECY OGC DISTRIBUTION Docket Files (50-312)-
GKnighton NRC PDR w/cy of incoming MKrebs(WITS 8900107)
Local PDR w/cy of incoming GKalman w/cy of incoming ED0 Reading JLee TMurley/JSniezek PDS WITS Ticket File JPartlow JTaylor DCrutchfield HThompson FMiraglia JBlaha FGillespie RBernero, NMSS PD5 Reading (w/cy of incoming)
RScroggins, OC GHolahan JDyer/ Region I, 17G21 MVirgilio RBorchardt/ Region II, 17G21 OGC JClifford/ Region III, 17G21 VStello JSharkey/ Region IV, 17G21 DMossburg, PMAS (wits #8900107)
HBClayton/ Region V,17G21 w/cy of incoming J. Martin, Region V I
[ WITS 8900107] isee previous page for concurrence l
DRSP/PD5 DRSP/PD5 DRSP/PD5 TECH ED.
DRSP/D:PD5 (A)AD:DRSP35 l
JLee
- SReynolds: sam GKalman:dr*
BCalure*
GKnighton*
MVirgilio*
7/ /89 7/18/89 7/18/89 7/
7/18/89 7/18/89 (LYandell for)
(A)D:DRSP*
ADP:NR DONRR (A)ED GMHolahan JPartlo TMurley*
JMTaylor l
7/18/89 g/q/89 7/24/89 37 /89 1
j
m
[y^w, A
pm UNITED STATES
'['
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-4 5
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
....+
.1 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RANCHO SECO STATUS UPDATE By SRM dated June 19, 1989, the staff was requested o keep the Commission apprised of developments at the Rancho Seco Nuclea Generating Station follow-ing the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (S D) ratepayers' vote on June 6, 1989, to close Rancho Seco. TheJune6,1989,yters'referendumwaspreceded by plant closure campaigns led by national ant -nuclear groups and pro-operation campaigns conducted primarily by Rancho Seco mployees and local business interests. Voters appeared.to focus primar y on the issue of rising utility rates and well-publicized examples of past mismanagement by SMUD.
Both the plant closure groups and the pro-operation grou s made future utility rates the central issue in their campaigns and both claime that their programs would result in the lower utility rates. Forty-one percent of the 519,000 eligible voters voted 53 to 47 percent to close the plant. On Ju 7, 1989, Rancho Seco_was shut down.
On June 20, 1989, during the first st-election meeting, the SMUD Board of Directors engaged in a debate over he interpretation of the voters' referendum. Did the voters indi te that Rancho Seco should not be operated by SMUD (sale and operation by oth s permissible) or did the referendum require
. decommissioning of Rancho Seco This issue was resolved by a board vote:
three cf the five board memben voted that the referendum permits sale and restart of Rancho Seco.
/
During the meeting of June 0 1989, Director C. Wilcox proposed to open a i
10-day window of opportunity for submission of bids for Rancho Seco. The l
board members recognized that any attempt to sell the plant would be challenged in court or/the basis of the ambiguity of the closure referendum.
To. forestall legal c 611enges, the board decided to initiate a new referendum to be voted on in N ember 1989. The new referendum would ask ratepayers whether Rancho Sec should be decommissioned or sold and returned to operation.
CONTACT:
G. Kalman, NRR 49-21367 1
L________.
n
} ;
The Commission '
I At the end of the 10-day bid window (June 30,1989), a purchase offer was -
received from Quadrex Corporation (William Derrickson, Chairman) and four separate proposals from companies that proposed to convert Rancho Seco to a fossil-fuel plant. General Atomics also responded with a letter expressing serious interest in purchasing Rancho Seco but requested a 30-day extension of the bid period. The Board of Directors instructed their staff to evaluate the Quadrex offer; however, Quadrex was not granted exclusive bargaining status.
The Rancho Seco staff is proceeding with plant decommissioning in accordance with the post-election directive from General Manager David Boggs.
It appears that this directive will remain in effect at least until the November 1989 referendum. Staff-reduction measures have already been initiated. The closure plan includes a staff reduction from 1600 to 1000 employees through completion of reactor defueling in November 1989 and a further reduction to 600 employees following defueling. The two senior plant managers have left SMUD for employment elsewhere. The SMUD staff is preparing a license submittal to the NRC to simplify existing technical specification requirements commen-surate with the safety concerns associated with a defueled plant. Maintenance and surveillance of equipment have been limited to those systems necessary to defuel the reactor and to maintain the plant safely in cold shutdown.
Contracts and engineering efforts to upgrade or modify the plant have been suspended.
The NRC staff is evaluating the SMUD closure process and has not identified any safety concerns with the licensee's plan or with the progress of that effort to date. A combined NRR/ Region V Task Force visited the site on June 15, 1989 to evaluate site conditions after the shutdown vote and to discuss plant closure plans with site managers.
Initial staff concerns about the instability of site management and licensed operators were somewhat decreased by SMUD's presentation of a relatively conservative approach to reactor defueling and eventual transi-tion to the decommissioning mode, SAFSTOR. Renegotiated contracts with managers, operators, and other specialists included financial incentives to retain key personnel through the more complex phases of plant closure and decommissioning.
In the cold shutdown mode, the licensee has considerable regulatory latitude with regard to equipment operability, surveillance, and maintenance. Technical specificationactionstatementsassociatedwithinoperable(e.g.,nolongermain-tained) equipment typically require the plant to transition to cold shutdown.
In the cold shutdown mode, regulatory oversight is focused on public safety issues that continue to exist when the reactor is in this relatively benign condition.
If a licensee chooses to reduce equipment upkeep while in cold shutdown, a return to power operation may require decertification of equipment and system operability. This aspect of the Rancho Seco closure was discussed with the licensee.
NRC inspection and licensing activities at Rancho Seco have been reduced but will continue at a level commensurate with plant conditions. Specific remaining
w:.
- ~
f h
/
The Commission [
. staff. concerns include SMUD's ability to safely-disassemble and defm e
b 3
rea'ctor, potential destructive acts by disgruntled employees, an 4 continued need for stringent control of radioactive liquid effluents to.t arid offsite-environment around Rancho Seco. The level of staff concern ma increase substantially if the present plant operating budget were re ed by the SMUD-Board of Directors. There is no indication that such act is planned.
If SMUD negotiations with potential buyers are fruitfu the staff would be ready to respond to a request for license transfer.
owever, it is not anticipated that SMUD will initiate any changes to e present decommissioning directive until.after the November referendum. T e Rancho Seco closure schedule includes plans to apply.for a Possession Only L ense by December 1989.
Vi or Stello, Jr.
ecutive Director for Operations cc: SECY OGC DISTRIBUTION thocketFiles(50-312)
GKnighton NRC PDR w/cy of incoming MKrebs(WITS 8900107)
Local PDR w/cy of, incoming GKalman w/cy of incoming ED0 Reading
- JLee, TMurley/JSniezek' PD5 WITS Ticket File JPartlow.
JTaylor DCrutchfield HThompson
~FMiraglia JBlaha FGillespie RBernero, NMSS PD5 Reading (w/cy fincoming)
RScroggins, OC GHolahan JDyer/ Region I, 17G21 MVirgilio RBorchardt/ Region II, 17G21 OGC JClifford/ Region III, 17G21
.VStello JSharkey/ Region IV,17G21 DMossburg, f AS (wits #8900107)
HBClayton/ Region V,17G21 w/cy of neoming J. Martin, Region V 2
[ WITS 89b0107]
/
DRSP/PD5 DRSP/PD5 DRSP/PDS TECH ED.
DRSP/D:PD5 (A)AD:DRSP35 JLee
- SReynolds: sam GKalman:dr*
BCalure*
GKnighton*
MVirgilio*
7/ /89 7/18/89 7/18/89 7/17/89 7/18/89 7/18/89 j
/
(LYandell for)
(A)D:DRSP*
ADP:NRf ED0 GMHolahan JPartle TMu ey # /
VStello 7/18/89 7/p/89 7
89 7/ /89 l
I
C;
/
1
+
d.
~The Commission o staff concerns include SMUD's ability to safely disassembl s and defuel the reactor, potential destructive acts by disgruntled employ es, and continued need for stringent control of radioactive liquid effluen s to the arid offsite environment around Rancho Seco. The level of staff cory.ern may increase substantially if the present plant operating budget were reduced by the SMUD Board o (Directors. There.is no' indication that suc ' action is planned.
If. SMUD negotiations with potential buyers are fru tful, the staff would be ready to respbqd to a request for license transf However, it is not anticipated thatsSMUD will. initiate any changes to the present decommissioning directive until after the November referendum. The Rancho Seco. closure schedule includes plans to app {y for a Possession Onl ' License by December.1989.
\\
ctor Stello, Jr.
xecutive Director for Operations.
cc: SECY 0GC DISTRIBUTION Docket Files (50-312)
Knighton NRC PDR w/cy of incoming MKebs(WITS 8900107)
' Local.PDR w/cy of incoming GKa an w/cy of incoming ED0 Reading JLee TMurley/JSniezek PD5 WI Ticket File JPartlow..
JTaylor DCrutchfield HThompson FMiraglia JBlaha FGillespie RBernero,-NMSS PD5 Reading (w/cy of in oming)
RScroggins, OC GHolahan JDyer/ Region I, 17 MVirgilio RBorchardt/ Region II, 7G21 OGC JClifford/ Region III, 1 21
.VStello JSharkey/ Region IV, 17G21 DMossburg,PMAS(w's#8900107)
HBClayton/ Region V, 17G21 w/cy.of incomin
[ WITS 8900107]
DRSP/PD5 DRSP/PD5 DRSP/PDS TECH ED.
DRSP/D:PD5 (A.)AD:DRSP35 JLee
- SReynolds: sam GKalman:dr*
BCalure*
GKnighton*
MVirgilio*
7/ /89 7/18/89 7/18/89 7/17/89 7/18/89 7/18/89 (LYandell for)
(
P ADP:NRR DONRR
.ED0 G
ahan JPartlow TMurley VStello 7/ /89 7/ /89 7/ /89 7/ /89
The Commission staff concerns include SMUD's ability to safely disassemble and defuel the reactor,potentialdestructiveactsbydisgruntledemployees,andconpued need for stringent control of radioactive liquid effluents to the ar/fd offsite environment around Rancho Seco. The level of staff concern may ir(rease substantially if the present plant operating budget were reduced }y the SMUD Board of Directors. There is no indication that such action 1. planned.
If SMUD negotiations with potential buyers are' fruitful, th staff would be ready to respond to a request for license transfer. Howev r, it is not anticipated that SMUD will initiate any changes to the p sent decommissioning directive until after the November referendum. The Ran o Seco closure schedule includes plans to apply for a Possession Only License y December 1989.
\\\\\\
'NN Victor ello, Jr.
N Execut' e Director for
\\
Ope ations cc: SECY
's OGC
\\
DISTRIBUTION
'N Docket Files (50-312)
GKnighton NRC PDR w/cy of incoming MKrebs(WITS 8900107)
Local PDR w/cy of incoming GKalman w/cy of incoming EDO Reading JLee TMurley/JSniezek PD5 WITS Ticket File s
JPartlow x
JTaylor DCrutchfield
. HThompson FMiraglia nJBlaha FGillespie RBernero, NMSS PD5 Reading (w/cy of incomi
)
RScroggins, OC GHolahan JDyer/ Region I, 17G21 MVirgilio RBorchardt/ Region II, 17G21
'OGC JClifford/ Region III, 17G21 VStello JSharkey/ Region IV, 17G21 DMossburg,PMAS(wits # 00107)
HBClayton/ Region V, 17G21 w/cy of incoming
/
[ WITS 8900107]
/
DR f%h5
( A)AD:DF SP35 h DRSP/PD5 D
PD5 DR PD5 TECH ED.
JLee 5
olds: sam an:dr BCalure Jug 1 ton MVirgili g 7/ /89 7
/9 9
7/17/89 7//6/89 7/i%/89 (A)D:DRSP ADP:NRR DONRR ED0 GMHolahan JPartlow TMurley VStello 7/ /89 7/ /89 7/ /89 7/ /89
\\
s 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - -. - _ _ - _ _ -. _. _---