ML20125C946
| ML20125C946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1984 |
| From: | Sherman C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125C784 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-007 NUDOCS 8506120205 | |
| Download: ML20125C946 (3) | |
Text
- -
l
- 0 h+g,-^
6 * ..-,f ,,,,,o , UNITED STATES E .s i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gc{
0, .A si l REGION V 1450 MARIA LANE. SUITE 210
- J ,oD WALNUT CREE K. CALIFOHNI A 945%
- .... , j 3LV 2 4 lg84 l)ocket No. 50-133 Hit.NOHANiltlN l'OR: F i i e. .
FROM: Conrad Sherman Radiation Specialist
SUBJECT:
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 3 Decommissioning Plan A meeting was held on September 11, 1984 between NRC representatives and the licensee to discuss subject and the NRC's schedule for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, questions posed at the ACRS meeting held on September 10, 1984 were discussed.
Participants were as follows:
NRC C. Sherman, RV F. Wenslawski, RV F. Witt, NRR/CHEB P. Erickson, NRR/ ORB P.GE R. Parker, llHPP R. Nelson, HBPP E. Weeks, HBPP J. Raggio, CO G. Wu, GO The following subjects were discussed:
It was agreed in discussion that no additional requirements existed beyond those of Part 20 in the area of effluent releases. The NRC indicated that it would be desirable for releases to be kept below the 10 CFR 20 requirements and that the compliance with 40 CFR 190 as mandated by 10 CFR 20 would also be required. The licensee indicated that releases were already ALARA and would be lower during the safestor period. ,
SHAPLENB5-OO7 PDE j
2 g; ;- .
- 1I c 2. Sources of radwaste during saleator.
p Nen-the safestor period is _ ended the likely sources of water will be
~ leak, age.into the spent fuel pool liner' space, rain water collected through the yard drainage systems and approximately 20 or 30 gallons per day from the cassion sump.
- 3. ACRS comment on cannabilization of the plant.
Licensee stated 'that the parts in Unit. 3 were not comp / stable with the fossil units and that the licensee has administrative controls in this
.. a rea .
- 4. ACRS comment on spent fuel pool monitor.
i I NHC HV. expressed the position that a spent luel'monito: w.is not neicusaiy but that the licensee's plans - for monitoring spent fuel pool should insure that representatives samples would he taken for water in the-vicinity of,the spent _ fuel. Licensee stated the position that. fuel damage was highly unlikely that any additional effort to improve
,* monitoring of the spent fuel was not warranted and that the monitoring the activities above the pool for Krypton 85 would perhaps be a better indicator of fuel' damage.
- 5. The ACHS ralacil several questionn regariling tailure of l'ucl while storeil in the spent pool.
Licensee indicated that the fuel failure was unlikely and would at best be a slow process and the radiological consequences of such failure would be negligible.
. Licensee representatives and_NRC RV representatives were in agreement that HEPA filters would likely not be needed on the exhaust system as the primary effluent would be Krypton 85. Regarding additional ACRS concern on particulate activity being released during the decommissioning operations, the licensee noted that systems would be laid up dry and sealed before the safestor period has ended and it would be unlikely that any actions to cause release of activity could occur during the safestor phase.
- 1. ' Timing for innuance of the Environmental Impart Statement. ,
P. Ericson descriheil the timing for issuance of an envisonmental impact statement indicated that it. would he required by 10 CleR 51. It was noteit that approximately a minimum of one year woulil be requireil for issuance of the environmental impart'st.atement and that the linal technical
. specification revisions for the safestor could not be issued before that.
r~~'r i
,J 3 qi SEP 3 ,-
r
'a .
6 8.
Adeq'tesy of and need for additional biota monitoring.
This question was discussed and no resolution was reached. It is likely that this requirement spe,cifications.
would need to be defined in a technical The licensee stated the position that biota monitoring in the past the future, had been negative and with the lower volume of releases in necessary. it is expected that additional monitoring would not be
- 9. Soil contamination on the site.
it Several anomalys associated with soil sample data described in the decommissioning report were discussed.
ACRS meeting or the subsequent meeting. No resolution was reached at the
- 10. Provisions concerns. for groundwater monitoring to address f uel pool leakage No comments, 11.
o Requirements for unloading pellets from new fuel pins onsite.
The licensee indicated that they had entered negotiations with Exxon Corporation for removal of the unirradiated fuel bundles. Proposed plans discussed include decontaminating the inel onsit_e and shipping it olisite to the fuel fabricator. The second possibility discussed was a two phase operation in which analysis of several fuel pins would be performed by opening the pins onsite and samples taken, with the second stage being unloading brought toall thewater fuel fuel pins into containers and having these containers fabricator. This program will be initiated because the fuel fabricator his facility. would be unable to handled contaminated fuel pins at NRC representatives indicated that: (a) fuel fabricator most likely did not have license authority to perform these operations at Humboldt Bay Site and that Humboldt Bay should consider the license considerations including a 5'0.59regardic3 review. disassembly of fuel pins at their facility.
It was agreed that this matter would need to be discussed further within NRC before any position could be stated.
The meeting concluded with a brief tour of the Unit 3 tacility by the NRC Region V participants.
C. Sherman Radiation Specialist cc: P. Erickson, NHR, DL
.