ML20003F492
| ML20003F492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1981 |
| From: | Crane P PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104210394 | |
| Download: ML20003F492 (2) | |
Text
!
,4 PACIFIC GAS AND E LE C T RIC C O M PANY 77 G E A L E ST R E ET,3:$7 FLO C #, S A N FP A N OIS C O, C A LIFO R NI A 94106 P. O. BOX 744;
-. ~m;,a
~-
T E L E P H O N E (415) ? 91 4:::
TELECOPtER (415) 54 3 7413 uaLeoLu n.=vaevsa
- . rya,:-.ra
- -
- j,:*,-;.;,
t@ril J,,1981 y::,w:c, r;.: - g,;:,,,,,
siw....
...ut...u uu.. m.u.
Y5,.$.:.$$$(({.
. A.i[?.EiE*.**'..*
aoaenr onueAcn v.:.:::.::::
.-.. w..- --.....,.-.
2.. 5" y2f,C.....,,,,,,,,M.(lf.; - --
c-..<.. o.
o....
...m...c......
e, te p y g (a p g a y, T g ac e e..e o
- a
- .
- ::
- .v.*. *c,y
.av-u=w.i5av..s..
i'.::.? /t ;.*-
?;: M7::r' c-aa6as<<v
.es.6.
!!.'ti:
'.*.f !!*
l*i *.*.".':!%.
~7' 4 E*:r*..
- 7.7.Ts "T *...
o.m a 6 e. aie a o.
- r lll* **'
1*":::l.*;;.
.....,...u.
- v:r.'. ".*P.;'**
- .v:!'..": "
- .:r."~~
- .*-
- =,
e Y 'cc Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director
.,'h Divisicn of Peacter Licensing y-s Office of Nuclear Peactor Pegulaticns 9
oI U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Cemiccicn H=UL' C
/#R 201991
- d Washingten, DC 20555
. c Be: Docket No. 50-133 "d T *ffe "
Iicense No. DPR-7 d
E Cu%i k.h
- Y
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
Ycur letter of Mcva6er 13,1980 described the schedule for sul:r.ittal of updated radiological e ergency rerpense plans in accordance with the reqairments of revised AppeMix E to 10 GR 50. Also, the letter of Ncr: ster 19, 1980 frcn Mr. T. A. Ippolito requested that this revision include a descripticn cf potential ccrplicating facters which might be caused by earthquakes.
The Htrboldt Bay Pcur Plant Unit No. 3 has heen shut dcm since July, 1976. The a:nount of decay heat presently being generated in the sper.t reactor fuel stored on site is not sufficient to cause fuel or cladding damage even follcung a total loss of ecolant. In additicn, the decay of short-lived activity has greatly reduced the pctential for a significant gaseous release. As a result of the abcr:e factors, the potential for an event resulting in an off-site release is extrerely Icw and the consecuences of such an event are r.uch less than those anticipated by our existing Energency Plan. We therefore feel that our existing procedures and Daergency Plan are aamuate for the existiry plant conditicns.
In respcnse to Mr. Ippolito's letter, we believe that based upon factors identified above, it is highly imlikely that rapid evacuaticn of the plant would he required folicwing a seisr. tic event, nor would there he an ira oMate need for additional perscnnel at the plant site. If such a need did exist, the snall size of t :e plant site and its prcxicity to local cxrrunities would perrit travel to ard frcn the plant site either cn fcct or usirs four-wheel drive vehicles if the rain roads were not passable. As identified in the existi:q Mency Plan, PGandE has a fleet of radio equipced autcrrhiles and trtx s in the Eureka area that will be
.cbilired if needed. Iarge scale evacuatica of the sur:cendi:q area is not a
/
relevant censideraticn due to the loe release Atial frcm the plant.
5 0
t g*j.QN N
..A
- Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut April 13, 1981 The existing Bergency Plan describes three paths of ccrmunication fran the plant in the event of an energency. These include telephone lines, microwave links and a VEP radio systen. These systems provide sufficient redundancy to insure ccurrunications would be available following a seismic event. We do not feel that expansica of these systers is warranted at this time.
In sumury, due to the low pr*hil4ty of a radiological energency at IAsnboldt Bay, we believe that the existing Dnergency Plan is adequate for the present plant ccniitions. State and local sie.u;gricy plans are also not being revised at this time (see California Health and Safety Code, Section 25880.4) pending a detennination en the resumption of operaticns at the facility.
As you are no doubt aware, PGandE has sought to withdraw its motion to restart Hunboldt which is currently pending before the Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). In that motion, we advised the ASLB that due to the uncertainty of Isc backfit policy the Ccrapany was at this time unable to make an informed determination on the future status of Humboldt. If, upcn resolution of that uncertainty, the decision is made to resume operation of the Unit, the Energency Plan will be revised in accordance with 10 GR 50, AM-x E.
Ccpies of the plans and implenenting precedures will be sutnitted at that time.
Very,truly yours,
,;,, I y k' U'l "r
I .
fPhilipA. Crane,Jr.
/