ML20031G414
| ML20031G414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1981 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8110220403 | |
| Download: ML20031G414 (3) | |
Text
.-
UNITED STATES OF Af!ERICh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED USHRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Administrative Judges:
11 (m 21 PI:i9 Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Gustave n. Linenberger OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERvlCE David R. Schink BRANCH SERVED OCT 211981
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-133-0LA
)
- m PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Ij ss.1 4
e
($
October 20,1$$'NLJJkjj'l (Humboldt Bay Power Plant
)
Unit No. 3 - Amendment to Facility
)
A Operating License)
)
l2} OCT2 2 Jggp, -~g l
O "" =ggjma o]'
s
\\
fTflyh'\\
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER f
In an order entered on July 14, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) directed Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Licensee) to submit a written statement setting forth its intentions regarding plant modifications necessary to bring Humboldt Bay. Power Plant, Unit 3, into compliance with current NRC requirements and, if it wished to retain the operating authority provided in Facility Operating Li, cense No. DPR-7, a proposed schedule for completing such plant modifications.
In response thereto, on August 13, 1981, Licensee filed an affidavit executed by its Senior Vice President for i
Facilities Development.
According to Licensee, additional studies are necessary to evaluate various alternatives for the plant. These studies include updating Licensee's analysis of those actions which must be taken in order to resume power operation as well as various decommissioning options. Licensee has already embarked upon such a program which should be completed by December 15, 1981.
8110220403 811020' PDR ADOCK 05000133
$0\\
G PDR
4
. However, an additional six months will be required, to reassess the costs associated with various alternatives being evaluated, after the Commission determines backfit requirements for older plants such as Humboldt and
~~
issues guidance on those requirements.
Licensee's response concludes with the statement that it is extremely reluctant to abandon a proven source of generation located in a relatively isolated area within its system and with the assertion that:
'"Since the unit, it its present cold shutdown condition, presents no risk to-the health and safety of the public, PGandE believes that there is no compelling reason for this Board to issue an Order to Show Cause why the operating authority for Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 should be revoked.
We are convinced that it is beneficial to maintain the plant in an operational status pending a decision on NRC backfit requirements and an assessment of their effect on the economics of returning the Unit to operation."
Before taking further action in this proceeding, the Board would like to have the views of the NRC Staff on Licensec's assertion that the Humboldt Bay nuclear plant in its present cold shutdown condition, presents no risk to the health and safety of the pubi!c. Specifically, the Staff is directed to provide answers to the following Board questions:
1.
What regulatory requirements apply to a plant in cold shutdown mode.
2.
Are applicable regulatory requirements currently being met by Licensee?
3.
Has the Staff given consideration to the question of whether the exceptionally.long shutdown of Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 might give rise to the potential f,or significant safety problems? What unusual problems might arise?
4.
Has there been any evidence whatsoever of seismic effects within the exclusion area? If so, please describe.
, 5.
What physical security measures are currently in force? What was date and nature of last change to physical security procedures?
What changes are planned between now and end of CY 1982? (Assume no change in operational status).
6.
What surveillance is being routinely performed by I&E7 What was date and nature of last change in routine surveillance? What changes are planned between now and end of CY 1982? What non-routine surveillance has been performed? What were the results of surveillance efforts in 1980, 1981? (Assumenochangein operational status) 7.
What is status of facility, including components and systems that are routinely operated; and including location and conditions of storage of all new, partially used, and spent fuel? What is currently being done to maintain fuel integrity and assure its safety with respect to security, criticality and thermal stability?
8.
Describe physical and preventive maintenance being perfonned to assure continued integrity of safety related components. What is size, makeup (by discipline) and duty cycle of standby crew?
What will be required to return facility to operational readiness?
Is there known deterioration of any components such that replacement is contemplated in order to retain adequate stanr4 conditions -
in order to achieve operational readiness? Has trate of technology advanced to such an extent that any significant components on instrumentation and control systems will need to be modifie.d to achieve operational readiness?
ORDER It is this 20th day of October 1981 ORDERED That within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order, the NRC staff shall file written responses to the Board's questions set forth above. Other parties may file their comments regarding the questions or the Staff's responses thereto within fifteen (15 days) after service of the Staff's responses, f
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD RW-l Robert M. Lazo, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l