ML20040H600
| ML20040H600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1982 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8202180427 | |
| Download: ML20040H600 (6) | |
Text
@'
p tKETED co #
UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Nb
_w" I. ~:SO${.(y Administrative Judges:
Robert M. Lazo, Chairman-Gustave A. Linenberger SERVED FEB 17 W82 David R. Schink
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-133-OL
)
4 m'I no PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY _
)
)
February 16, 19 RN
\\1 2tcc,) 4 (Humboldt Bay Power Plant
)
2-FE y Unit No. 3 - Amendment to Facility
)
.- # *g;g 198&l[f Operating License)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In a Memorandum and Order (" Order") entered on October 20, 1981, the Board directed the NRC Staff to provide written responses to a number of Board questions regarding the assertions of Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(" Licensee") that Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 "in its present cold shutdown condition, presents no risk to the health and safety of the public."E In compliance therewith, the NRC Staff filed its response by letter dated November 19, 1981 together with accompanying affidavits.
y See August 13, 1981 Response of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Board Order of July 14, 1981 (page 6).
9 o2 5
r 8202180427 820216
//
PDR ADOCK 05000133 i
G PDR
Pt.
4 2
As permitted by the Order, the other parties have filed comments on the Board's questions and the Staff's responses.
In their response filed on December 4,1981, Joint Intervenors contend that the Board should
" revoke PG&E's operating license now and - order the plant permanently shut down and decommissioned regardless of whether, in its present cold shut-down condition, it presents an immediate danger to the public health and safety."
(page 3)
Accordingly, in the view of Joint Intervenors, while the questions and answers are "of the utmost importance", they are "in a sense irrelevant to the issue presently before the Board in this proceeding, which is whether to allow PG&E to retain its operating license."
As for the Staff's answers, Joint Intervenors argue that they confirm that the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant is in continuing violation of public health and safety regulations and are rife with conclusional assertions for which no supporting data or factual bees are provided.
Therefore, Joint Intervenors urge the Board to find that the answers are inadequate and to order the Staff, to respond more fully along the lines suggested in Joint Intervenors pleading of December 4, 1981.
In its letter dated December 9, 1981 commenting on the Staff's answers to the Board's questions, Licensee
" totally agree (s) with the staff that the current status of the plant is such that notwithstanding noncompliance with several existing NRC regulatory requirements, the plant in cold shutdown status poses no threat to the public health and safety."
Licensee concludes (as does the Staff) that unlike an operating plant, Humboldt Bay in a cold shutdown status does not require literal compliance with all the specific regulatory requirements currently in effect in order to assure adequate prot ~ection of the public health and safety.
V.
3 Accordingly, Licensee urges the Board to grant its motion to withdraw its application to restart Unit 3 and/or maintain the status quo pending determination of NRC back-fit policy and subsequent assessment by Licensee of its impacts on the economic justification for restart of its Humboldt Bay nuclear facility.
In this regard, Licensee noted that the Commission was expected to issue for public comment a policy statement setting forth its proposals for establishment of a safety goal for all nuclear plants which would in turn form the basis for regulatory guidelines delineating the precise standards which must be met for all plants including older plants such as Humboldt Bay.
The Board has carefully studied the answers provided by the Staff to the eight questions promulgated by the Board in its Memorandum and Order entered on October 20, 1981'and the comments provided by the other parties.
By and large, we are satisfied with the Staff's responses and find no reason for not accepting the Staff's belief that the public health and safety is being protected despite the fact that the Licensee has not complied with several existing NRC regulatory requirements.
However, it is clear that the status quo at this shutdown facility cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
The problem presented in this proceeding is that the Commission's regulations simply have never contemplated a long shutdown such has occurred with the Humboldt Bay plant.
The time has come to set a time-table fcr resolving that problem.
As Licensee has noted, the Commission intends to establish a safety goal for all nuclear plants. The Commissic, has stated in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy and Planning Guidance 1982 published January 1982 (NUREG-0885, Issue 1)(pages 9-10):
.)
[
4 Safety Goal Policy A.
The Comission has decided to develop a safety goal. and related safety guidance ~with initial emphasis on individual and societal risks which might arise from reactor accidents.
The purpose of this project is to develop a general approach to risk acceptability and safety-cost tradeoffs, and, to the extent possible, to specify qualitative safety goals and quan titative safety guidance and standards for review of rules and practice.
Planning Guidance 1.
Simultaneously with obtaining public comment on safety goals, the staff should prepare for Comission review a step-by-step action plan describing how it intends to use the goals and numerical guidance within the regulatory process.
i 2.
Qualitative safety goals and associated quantitative numerical guidance, when approved by the Comission, should be used in the evaluation of proposed and existing NRC reactor safety requirements,.
In accordance with its previously announced Plan for Developing a Safety Goal (45 FR 71023, October 27,1980), the Commission on February 11, 1982 published for public comment a proposed policy statement on safety goals for nuclear power plants. A report discussing the development of the proposed policy statement has been published separately as NUREG-0880, Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants:
A Discussion Paper. Written comments on both are to be received by May 18, 1982.
Meanwhile, the Commission has requested the staff to develop a specific action plan for implementation of the proposed qualitative safety goals and numerical guidelines. The plan, along with the public comments on the policy statement and the discussion paper (NUREG-0880), will be considered
\\<)
5 by the Commission in reaching a final decision on the adoption of a reactor safety policy statement and its associated goals and guidelines.
Once the NRC safety goals and implementing standards have been adopted by the Commissicr., the Licensee will require a reasonable period of time for-review to assess the relative economic justification for returning the Humboldt Bay nuclear plant to service.
We believe that six months is a reasonable period of time,for making a decision to resume operation of the plant or to decommission it. Meanwhile, regular quarterly status reports to the Board will be required.
ORDER For the foregoing reasons and based upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 16th day of February 1982 ORDERED (1) That within six (6) months af ter the Commission reaches a final decision on the adoption of a reactor safety policy statement and its associated goals and guidelines, Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall report to this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (a) that it is then ready to take actions necessary to permit resumption of operation of Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, or (b) that it will then commit to the submittal to the Commission of a plan to decommission the Unit.
5+
6 (2) That on April 1,.1982 and.each three (3). months thereaf ter until this matter has been resolved, Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall file a detailed status report.with the Board.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY-AND LICENSING BOARD Rde&M.Ew Robert M. Lazo, Chairr@h ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
',