ML070100597
| ML070100597 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2007 |
| From: | John Hickman NRC/FSME/DWMEP/DURLD/RDB |
| To: | NRC/FSME |
| Hickman J, NMSS/DWM/DCB, 301-415-3017 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML070100597 (3) | |
Text
January 22, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Biweekly Notice Coordinator FROM:
John B. Hickman, Project Manager /RA/
Reactor Decommissioning Branch Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN BIWEEKLY FR NOTICE - NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP), Unit 3 Humboldt County, California Date of amendment request: December 20, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The licensee has proposed to amend the Facility Operating License by deleting paragraph 2.B.3(c), and replacing it with a new paragraph 2.B.4 to read as follows: "Pursuant to the Act and Title 10, CFR, Chapter I, Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source, or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
- 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
2 Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the type and limits of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. However, in the proposed change, the type or amount of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material to be received, possessed, or used would not change plant systems or accident analysis, and as such, would not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents. Therefore, the proposed change does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the limits and type of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant or require existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Temporary equipment brought onsite for decommissioning activities would still be required to be operated in accordance with plant procedures and licensing bases documents, regardless of the byproduct material content. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated.
- 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the limit and type of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment, operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Temporary equipment brought onsite for decommissioning activities would still be required to be operated in accordance with plant procedures and licensing bases documents, regardless of the byproduct material content. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Antonio Fernandez, Esquire, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Post Office Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120 NRC Branch Chief: Claudia Craig
2 Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the type and limits of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. However, in the proposed change, the type or amount of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material to be received, possessed, or used would not change plant systems or accident analysis, and as such, would not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents. Therefore, the proposed change does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the limits and type of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant or require existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Temporary equipment brought onsite for decommissioning activities would still be required to be operated in accordance with plant procedures and licensing bases documents, regardless of the byproduct material content.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident evaluated.
- 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates a restriction regarding the limit and type of byproduct and special nuclear material to be received, possessed, and used onsite. The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment, operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Temporary equipment brought onsite for decommissioning activities would still be required to be operated in accordance with plant procedures and licensing bases documents, regardless of the byproduct material content. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Antonio Fernandez, Esquire, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Post Office Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120 NRC Branch Chief: Claudia Craig DISTRIBUTION:
DURLD r/f RidsOgcMailCenter JHickman CCraig KMcConnell RidsRgn4MailCenter ML070100597 OFFICE DCD/PM DCD/LA OGC DCD/SC NAME JHickman TMixon JHull CCraig DATE 1/11/2007 1/11/2007 1/22/2007 1/6/2007 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY