ML032060158
| ML032060158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 07/24/2003 |
| From: | Hall J NRC/NMSS/SFPO |
| To: | Camper L NRC/NMSS/SFPO |
| Allen W | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML032060065 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC L23589 | |
| Download: ML032060158 (6) | |
Text
July 24, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO:
Larry Camper, Deputy Director Licensing and Inspection Directorate Spent Fuel Project Office, NMSS FROM:
James R. Hall, Sr. Project Manager /RA/
Licensing Section Spent Fuel Project Office, NMSS
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY REGARDING A PROPOSED INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION AT HUMBOLDT BAY On April 3, 2003, a meeting was held between representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to discuss PG&Es planned license application for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at the Humboldt Bay site. Attachment 1 is a list of attendees. Attachment 2 is a copy of the meeting handout. The meeting was noticed on March 19, 2003.
PG&E opened the meeting with a brief overview of the Humboldt Bay power plant history and current status, and a review of past meetings with the NRC on the proposed ISFSI. Humboldt Bay Unit 3 is a 63 MWe boiling water reactor licensed in 1962. The plant was shutdown in 1976, and was not restarted, as necessary design modifications were determined not to be cost-effective. In 1988, the plant entered a SAFSTOR configuration, as the operating license was amended to a possession-only license. In order to proceed with decommissioning of Unit 3, PG&E determined that the 390 spent fuel assemblies currently stored in the spent fuel pool should be placed in an ISFSI. Past meetings with NRC were held in April and November of 1999, March of 2000, and June 2002. Meeting topics included quality assurance, control of public access to nearby areas, the use of probabilistic techniques in analyzing handling and storage activities, and licensing basis and design concepts for the ISFSI.
PG&E has received funding approval for the ISFSI project from the California Public Utilities Commission. They plan to use a modified Holtec HI-STAR dry cask storage system design that will consist of six HI-STAR casks placed in a vault below grade. Each of the HI-STAR HB casks (a customized design for Humboldt Bay) will permit storage of up to 80 spent fuel assemblies.
Five of the six casks will be able to store all of the plants spent fuel; the sixth cask will be used to store greater than Class C (GTCC) waste.
PG&E provided the current status of their application. The design of the ISFSI and support equipment (the storage vault, casks, multi-purpose canister and lifting devices) will be finalized by mid-2003. Accident analyses for both Part 50 and Part 72 activities will be completed by the third quarter of 2003, and PG&E plans to submit the ISFSI application by the end of calendar year 2003.
PG&E described the GTCC waste to be stored, which include components of the control rod drive mechanisms and the core shroud. They indicated that they were following the Spent Fuel Project Office guidance in Interim Staff Guidance document No. 17 (ISG-17) for the design of the GTCC cask, which will be compatible with the HI-STAR system. PG&E and Holtec also described how the HI-STAR canisters will meet the leak tight criteria in accordance with ISG-5, revision 2.
PG&E explained their rationale for development of seismic design criteria for the ISFSI. For work inside the refueling building, the seismic design criteria of 0.5g currently used for the plant will apply. Outside the refueling building, for ISFSI handling and storage operations, a design criterion of 1.0g for seismic acceleration will apply. However, for specific events involving the loading and handling of the spent fuel itself, a more conservative criterion may be used. The NRC staff discussed the current Part 72 rulemaking regarding the use of Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Analysis and encouraged PG&E to consider the methods addressed in the rulemaking.
PG&E reviewed the detailed cask loading and handling sequences and described the regulatory requirements that apply to each phase. Holtec described the design of the single failure proof lifting devices to be used, the details of which they consider proprietary.
PG&E described the unique vault design to be used at the Humboldt Bay ISFSI. Some of the reasons PG&E has chosen this design include its enhanced protection against seismic events and the minimization of radiological doses, due to the close proximity of public access trails. The vault will consist of six steel liners embedded in concrete, with steel lids bolted to the liner flanges.
Because the decay heat of the Humboldt Bay spent fuel is so low, no ventilation of the vault spaces is required.
PG&E then discussed general security concepts for the ISFSI. PG&E proposes to locate the ISFSI inside a security fence, with the secondary alarm station outside the fence. The protected area would be defined as the area around the casks within the storage vault, with the space above designated as the isolation zone. This would allow PG&E to limit the size of the protected area needed, and along with the in-ground design, will allow for better observation of the ISFSI by security personnel. PG&E questioned the NRC as to which security requirements would apply to the Humboldt Bay ISFSI. Title 10 CFR 73.55 provides security requirements for holders of 10 CFR Part 50 licenses, while 10 CFR 73.51 addresses facilities that store spent fuel.
The NRC staff indicated that it would provide a clarification to PG&E.
PG&E and NRC staff identified possible topics for future meetings, including the application of the Diablo Canyon quality assurance plan to Humboldt Bay activities, the use of probabilistic evaluations for specific short duration activities, geotechnical studies, and security issues. The meeting was then adjourned; no regulatory decisions were requested nor made.
Docket Nos.: 72-27 and 50-133 Attachments: 1. Attendee List
- 2. Meeting Handout design of the GTCC cask, which will be compatible with the HI-STAR system. PG&E and Holtec also described how the HI-STAR canisters will meet the leak tight criteria in accordance with ISG-5, revision 2.
PG&E explained their rationale for development of seismic design criteria for the ISFSI. For work inside the refueling building, the seismic design criteria of 0.5g currently used for the plant will apply. Outside the refueling building, for ISFSI handling and storage operations, a design criterion of 1.0g for seismic acceleration will apply. However, for specific events involving the loading and handling of the spent fuel itself, a more conservative criterion may be used. The NRC staff discussed the current Part 72 rulemaking regarding the use of Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Analysis and encouraged PG&E to consider the methods addressed in the rulemaking.
PG&E reviewed the detailed cask loading and handling sequences and described the regulatory requirements that apply to each phase. Holtec described the design of the single failure proof lifting devices to be used, the details of which they consider proprietary.
PG&E described the unique vault design to be used at the Humboldt Bay ISFSI. Some of the reasons PG&E has chosen this design include its enhanced protection against seismic events and the minimization of radiological doses, due to the close proximity of public access trails. The vault will consist of six steel liners embedded in concrete, with steel lids bolted to the liner flanges.
Because the decay heat of the Humboldt Bay spent fuel is so low, no ventilation of the vault spaces is required.
PG&E then discussed general security concepts for the ISFSI. PG&E proposes to locate the ISFSI inside a security fence, with the secondary alarm station outside the fence. The protected area would be defined as the area around the casks within the storage vault, with the space above designated as the isolation zone. This would allow PG&E to limit the size of the protected area needed, and along with the in-ground design, will allow for better observation of the ISFSI by security personnel. PG&E questioned the NRC as to which security requirements would apply to the Humboldt Bay ISFSI. Title 10 CFR 73.55 provides security requirements for holders of 10 CFR Part 50 licenses, while 10 CFR 73.51 addresses facilities that store spent fuel.
The NRC staff indicated that it would provide a clarification to PG&E.
PG&E and NRC staff identified possible topics for future meetings, including the application of the Diablo Canyon quality assurance plan to Humboldt Bay activities, the use of probabilistic evaluations for specific short duration activities, geotechnical studies, and security issues. The meeting was then adjourned; no regulatory decisions were requested nor made.
Docket Nos.: 72-27 and 50-133 Attachments: 1. Attendee List
- 2. Meeting Handout Distribution w/atts: (TAC No. L23589)
Docket 72-27 Docket 50-133 NRC File Center PUBLIC NMSS r/f SFPO r/f WBrach WHodges EEaston JGuttmann DSpitzberg, RIV WHuffman, NMSS C:\\MyFiles\\Checkout\\040303mtgsum.wpd OFC SFPO SFPO SFPO NAME JRHall EZiegler JMonninger DATE 07/24 /03 07 /24 /03 07/ 24 /03 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Meeting between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Company on the proposed Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation April 3, 2003 ATTENDANCE LIST Name Affiliation Terry Grebel PG&E Terry Nelson PG&E Tom Moulia PG&E Roy Willis PG&E Lawrence Pulley PG&E Brian Gutherman Holtec Eric Lewis Holtec Alan Soler Holtec Steve Agace Holtec Rick McGoey Enercon Randy Hall NRC/SFPO John Monninger NRC/SFPO Jack Guttmann NRC/SFPO Steve OConnor NRC/SFPO Jorge Solis NRC/SFPO Stephanie Bush-Goddard NRC/SFPO Mike Waters NRC/SFPO Mahendra Shah NRC/SFPO Barry Manili NRC/NSIR Bill Huffman NRC/NMSS Neil Jensen NRC/OGC Greg Hatchett NRC/NRR Sheldon Trubatch self
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3 Docket No. 72-27, 50-133 cc:
Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Deputy Attorney General State of California 110 West A Street, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Christopher J. Warner, Esq.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Mr. Thomas A. MouliaHumboldt Bay Plant Manager Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant 1000 King Salmon Avenue Eureka, CA 95503 Chairman, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors County Courthouse 825 Fifth Street Eureka, CA 95501 Mr. Steve Hsu Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services Post Office Box 942732 Sacramento, CA 94327-7320 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Public Affairs Officer, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN: Regional Radiation Representative 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Mr. Truman Burns California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness, Room 4102 San Francisco, CA 94102 Mr. Robert Kinosian California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness, Room 4102 San Francisco, CA 94102 Redwood Alliance P.O. Box 293 Arcata, CA 95521 Dr. Rich Ferguson, Energy Chair Sierra Club California 1100 11th Street, Suite 311 Sacramento, CA 94814 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant ATTN: Lawrence F. Womack Vice President Nuclear Technical Services P. O. Box 3 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Mr. Ed Bailey, Radiation Program Director Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services P.O. Box 942732 (MS 178)
Sacramento, CA 94327-7320 Mr. James D. Boyd, Commissioner California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street (MS 31)
Sacramento, CA 95814
PG&E Meeting Handout