ML20128M669

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 19 to License DPR-7

ML20128M669
Person / Time
Site:	Humboldt Bay
Issue date:	07/16/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20128M647	List: ML20128M645 ML20128M655 ML20128M669
References
NUDOCS 8507260047
Download: ML20128M669 (2)

Text

-

'g UNIT ED STATES 8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 $  : E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

~s*...+/ a SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPP0PTING AMENDMENT NO.19 TO FACII.ITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-7 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY HUMBOLDT RAY POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-133

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated July 30, 1984 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) proposed: (1) to amend License No. DPR-7 to possess-but-not-operate status; (2) to delete license conditions related to seismic modifications, investigations and anal to power operation; (3)ysis required to revise the prior to NRC Technical authorizationtoofreflect Specifications a return ,

the possess-but-not-operate status of license; and (4) to decommission Humboldt Bey Unit No. 3 in accordance with a decomissioning plan submitted with the application. Action on items 2, 3 and 4 will be taken at a later date, estimated to be late 1985. This amendment would only revise License No. DPR-7 to possess-but-not-operate status (Iten 1).

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested possess-but-not operate status was oublished in the Federal Register on March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12152). No public comments or requests for hearing were received. Items 2, 3 and 4 above will be noticed separately in the Federal Register.

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The proposed amendment to possess-but-not-operate status is implemented by changing paragraph B.I. of License No. DPR-7 from " possess, use and operate the reactor as a utilization facility" to " possess but not operate the reector as a utilization facility." In addition, License No. DPR-7 is changed by: (I) deleting the words "in connection with operation of the reactor" fron paragraph B.2.; (2) deleting the words "for use in connection with operation of the reactor" from paragraph B.2.(a); (3) deleting the words "to be used in the reactor" from paragraph B.3.(a); (4) changing the words "as may be" to "which were" in paragraph B.4; (5) deletino paragraph C.I. entitled " Maximum Pcwer Level" in its entirety; and (6) changing 3aragraph C.? from "The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with tm Technical Specifications" to "The licensee shall maintain the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications."

8507260047 850716 PDR ADOCK 05000133 P PDR

-?-

All of the above revisions tn license No. DPR-7 constitute additional limitations not presently included in the license in that all of the revisions constitute the deletion of authority to operate the reactor. All current monitoring requirements remain in effect. Therefore, since the effect of each of the revisions is to place more limitations on the licensee the amendment does not result in significant risk to the public health and safety.

i 3.0 ENVIRONf' ENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendnent involves a change in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

The staff has detemined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents

' that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no

> significent hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFP 51.72(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment f e need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

9 p

4.0 CONCLUSION

8 The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

?

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public j will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations g and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimicel to the common defense o and security or to the health and safety of the public, i

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by Peter B. Erickson.

h j Dated: July 16,1985 l

l