ML20151G236

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 23 to License DPR-7

ML20151G236
Person / Time
Site:	Humboldt Bay
Issue date:	07/19/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20151G216	List: ML20151G214 ML20151G225 ML20151G236 ML20151G239
References
NUDOCS 8807280215
Download: ML20151G236 (9)

Text

.'

g.9 o UNITED STATES y

• p ,( ' gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• a E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Y- (,/ s SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SilPPLEMENT 1 BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-7 INCLUDING .VFR0'YAL OF DECOMMISSIONING PLAN FOR HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET N0. 50-133

1.0 INTRODUCTION

s Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit No. 3 (Humboldt Bay Unit 3) has been sh; down since July 2, 1976. In 1983, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) decided to decomission Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and subsequently submitted a Proposed Decomissioning Plan, Proposed Technical Specifications (TS) and an Environmental Report (Schuyler, July 30, 1984). The licensee proposed (1) to amend License No. DPR-7 to possess-but-not-operate status; (2) to delete certain license conditions related to seismic modifications required before the NRC would authorize a return to power operation; (3) to revise the TS to reflect the possess-but-not-operate status; (4) to decomissioning Humboldt Bay Unit 3 in accordance with the plan included with the submittal; and (5) to extend License No. DPR-7 for 15 additional years, to November 9, 2015, to be consistent with the Decomissioning Plan.

In response, the NRC issued License Amendment No. 19 on July 16, 1985 (NRC, 1985) revising License No. DPR-7 to possess-but-not-operate status (Item 1 above) and published.a Notice of Opportunity for Prior Hearing in the FEDERAL REGISTER on July 3, 1986 related to the remaining items in the proposed amendment. Pursuant to that notice, members of the public petitioned for leave to intervene and requested a hearing. Their request was granted by Atomic Safety and Licensing Board No. 86-536-07 LA (the Board).

Bv letters dated April 29 and May 6, 1987, respectively the NRC issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and a Final Environmental Statement (FES) with respect to the above proposed amendrent. Copies of the SER and FES were also provided to the Board on May 1 and May 8, 1987 respectively.

On February 9, 1988, the Board issued an order which dismissed all l contentions and terminated the proceeding following a settlement of all disputed issues between the intervenors, the licensee and the NRC staff.

8807280215 PDR 880719 "

P ADOCK 05000133 PNU

l I

The SER (NRC, April 29, 1987) evaluated the proposed deletion of certain license conditions related to seismic modifications, the proposed revision to the TS, the proposed Decomissioning Plan, and the proposed extension of the license for 15 additional years. This evaluation covers changes in the TS and changes the Quality Assurance and Emergency Plan parts of the Decommissioning Plan that have been proposed since the issuance of the SER on April 29, 1987.  ;

2.0 EVALUATION

~

Proposed additional changes to the TS, the Quality Assurance Plan and the ~

Emergency Plan are evaluated below.

2.1 Technical Specifications (TS)

The TS proposed by the licensee (Shiffer, March 13 and May 23, 1986 and March 20, 1987) are evaluated in the SER (April 29, 1987) and '

I were found acceptable by the staff (SER Page 5-1). Fo11cwing issuance of the SER the riRC re-evaluated the proposed TS with respect to regional inspections and determined that certain changes would improve surveillance, clarify TS requirements and reduce misundarstanding during these inspections. A letter (NRC July 23, 1987) documented our request for additional.information. The licensee provided their response to the request with changes to their proposed TS (Shiffer, November 16, 1987). The licensee also made further editorial and clarification changes subsequent to their November 16, 1987 submittal (Maneatis, March 16, 1988, and Shiffer May 23, 1988). The TS revisions that have been proposed by the licensee since issuance of the SER are evaluated below.

2.1.1 Site Boundaries A map, Figure II-1, was provided which specifies the location of the fence line used for offsite dose calculations. A second map, Figure II-2, shows the location of the site restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.3(a)(14). These proposed changes specifi-cally identify the location of site boundaries for dose calculation and for onsite radiation control and are acceptable.

2.1.2 Clarification of Requirements Proposed changes involved clarification of: the basis for the Offsite Dose Calculations Manual (Section I.B.4.); the description of the principal activities on site (Section II.C);.the water level  :

limits for the spent fuel pool and liner gap (Section III.B.2);

water chemistry requirements by the use of the word "limits" rather than "acceptable range" (Table III-2); reports on Fire Water System inoperability that would be sent to the NRC Region V Administrator rather than the Region V Director of Regulatory Operations (Section IV.B.3.b); the minimum specific gravity allowed for the fire pump diesel starting batteries (Section IV.B.3.C(9));

the offsite dosimetry and water sampling locations (Section V.A.4);

the locations and radionuclides sampled onsite (Section V.A.6)*

r.

1 1

1 l

the performance of emergency drills / exercises as described in the i Emergency Plan (Section VII.F) and the distribution of the annual report and the semiannual Effluent Release Report (Secticn VII.H.1 and 3).

All of these changes are improvements to the TS in that they clarify and reduce potential misunderstanding between the licensee and NRC inspectors. Therefore, we find these changes acceptable.

2.1.3 Surveillance Trainino and Instrument Calibration Improvement Proposed changes involve improved requirements for radiation and water quality surveillance and for calibration of radiation surveillance instrumentation.

Proposed TS III.B.2.b requires Spent Fuel Pool water quality to be sampled and analyzed at least once per month, an improvement over once per quarter. TS also requires report to the NRC if the water quality cannot be restored to the required limits within 30 days.

Proposed TS IV.B.3.C(6) adds a requirement for a low-level alarm to the raw water storage tank that is used to supply water for the fire water system.

Proposed TS V.B.2 revises the limit for the Process Water Monitor to increase the sensitivity for any release of radioactivity.

Proposed TS V.B.3.d and e adds requirements for annual calibration of area radiation detection and portable instruments.

Proposed TS V.B.6 adds requirements for tritium monitoring and thirty day reporting if any parameter is exceeded.

Proposed TS VI.A.1 improves radwaste filter requirements by requiring filtration of particles of 25 microns or greater.

Proposed TS VII.C.4.d adds a requirement for training on 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 61 and 71 to TS requirements for training of Radiation and Process Monitors (RPMs).

Proposed TS VII.E adds requirements for procedures for calibration of instrunents and procedures to implement the Emergency Plan.

All of these TS changes involve additions and improvements in surveillance, in training and in instrument calibration requirements and therefore improvements in safety. The changes are therefore acceptable.

J 4_

2.2 Quality Assurance Plan Our Safety Evaluation Report of April 29, 1987 concluded that "the licensees Ouality Assurance Program is acceptable and gives reasonable assurance thatacceptable controlled and the decommissioning manner" SER(activities will beThe Page 6-17). conducted changes in a proposed in Revisitn 3 dated July 30, 1987 and Revision 4 dated April 1, 1988 are evaluated below.

~

Sections 1.2.a and 3.3 are changed by adding a reference to 10 CFR Part 71. Other parts of the QA plan are changed by updating organizational titles. Section 3.1.7 has been changed to correct the Regulatory Guide references. All of the above changes clarify and correct the QA plan and are therefore acceptable.

In section 3.1.6 of proposed Revision No. 3, the specified fire rating for storage containers for SAFSTOR QA records was changed from two hours indicated in Regulatory Guide 1.88 to one hour in order to be consistent with existing stcrage facilities at the plant.

This change is acceptable as this is only interim storage for recently completed QA records. All records required by TS Section VII.I. "Records Retention" including QA records have been put on microfilm and are stored at the licensees central storage facilities which have a five rating of two hours or are stored as hard copy in the licensees storage vault.

The change (Section 3.1.7) to the frequency of audit of implementation of the QA plan corrects it to agree with the TS as reviewed by our April 29, 1987 SER and is therefore acceptable.

2.3 Emergency Plan Our Safety Evaluation Report of April 29, 1987 concluded that (1) the Emergency Plan, including licensee conmitments, provides an adequate basis for an acceptable state of. emergency preparedness, and (2) the Emergency Plan, in conjunction with arrangements maae with offsite response agencies, provides reasonable assurance that adsquate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Humboldt Bay Unit 3 (SER page 11-9).

Emergency Plan revisions proposed since our April 29, 1987 SER (Shiffer, April 23, 1988) are evaluated below.

1

\

l l

.s J.

2.3.1 Editorial Changes Editorial changes to clarify requirements of the Emergency Plan, to correct typographical or gramatical errors and to delete redundant information are as follows:

Section 3.1, was changed to delete the words "power plant" as redundant.

Section 2.2, clarifies the location of the calibration facility with respect to "Refueling Building" rather than "St* tion Building."

Sections 3.2.2 and 3.4.1.1.b have been gramatically corrected.

Section 4.2.1.1 corrects the location of a sixth telephone line to specify the administrative office area rather than the equip-ment room. This change does not impact on communications capability.

Section 4.4.2(a) deletes a nonessential discussion of the normal use of site automobiles.

Section 4.4.2(b) deletes a nonessential description of general use of an on-site dump truck.

Table 4.3-2 deletes the : tack alarm setpoint from the plan as it is redundant to a TS limit.

Table 4.3-3 is corrected with respect to the type of radiation detected with proportional counter.

Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 clarifies emergency planning responsibility of the Plant Manager and the Power Plant Engineer. This is an improvement of the emergency plan.

~

Sections 6.3.1.1 and 6.3.1.2 have been revised to delete redundant phrases and to clarify protective actions for onsite perscnnel.

Section 8.1.3 is changed to be consistent with present PG&E organizational titles and to delete a redundant word.

Section 8.2.3 is changed to clarify the discussion about letters of agreement. The net result is a more positive statement in the plan on agreements wit,h local organizations.

Each of the above editorial changes in the Emergency Plan has been reviewed and found to be acceptable because they result'in a more correct and easier to read document with no reduction'in safety.

)

.+

v 2.3.2 Other Changes in Emergency Plan Section 4.2.1.2 corrects the statement about the mountain top tele-phone repeaters with respect to normal and emergency power sources.

This change is acceptable.

In Section 4.2.1.3 on VHF Radio Systems, a parenthetical statement on radio operation is deleted and a typographical error is corrected.

This change is acceptable, n Discussions about an additional radio control console in the Eureka Service Center Meter Shop and about the "normal" use for two radio equipped vehicles are also deleted. Except for the deletion of the "additional radio control console," these changes only delete unneeded information and are acceptable. With respect to the use of the Meter Shop console, there is sufficient redundancy in radio equipment to allow that extra console to be deleted.

The Section 5.1.4.1.2 revision adds a description of the responsibility of the County Office of Emergency Services for release of public information regarding off-site response. The revision also adds that PG&E will be responsible for information concerning on-site events in coordination with county public information personnel. This change clarifies who is responsible for release of information and is acceptable.

The Section 5.4.2 revision adds requirements for notification of emergencies to the State Warning Center and there2by makes this plan more consistent with State Emergency plans. This change is acceptable.

Table 5.2-1 has been revised to add duties for the Emergency Coordinator and others, to be consistent with other parts of the  ;

Emergency Plan. This change is acceptable.  ;

Section 5.1.8 changes normal shift staffing requirements to require a Certified Fuel Handler to be onsite whenever spent fuel 3 is in the spent fuel pool rather than just during fuel handling operations. This change is more conservative and is acceptable.

The Section 5.3.1 change revises the Corporate Headquarters Support to reference the Corporate Emergency Response Plan and to designate the Vice President of Nuclear Power Generation as the Corporate Recovery Manager. This revision designates a specific individual at corporate headquarters rather than a department. The revision, therefore, clarifies Corporate Headquarters role in the Humboldt Emergency Plan and is acceptable.

Sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.1.d and 7.14 have been revised to be consistent with the change in Corporate Headquarters Support, Section 5.3.1 above. These changes are therefore acceptable. l s .-. . .- _. _ .., . - - - .

s 4

v 7-3.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT A Final Environmental Statement (FES) was completed in April 1987 (NUREG-ll66). Notice of availability of the FES was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on May 12, 1987 (52 FR 17863). In the FES the staff concluded that: (1) a technical basis exists for decommissioning nuclear plants in a safe, efficient manner; (2) no significant environmental impact:: will result from the storage of spent fuel in the spent-fuel pool; and.(3) Humboldt Bay Unit 3 can be placed in SAFSTOR for a 30-year period with minimal environmental impact (NUREG-ll66, pages 5-1). _

Subsequent changes to the TS, OA Plan and Emergency Plan as discussed in this Safety Evaluation did not change the conclusions in our FES.

4.0 CONCLUSION

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility License and Opportunity for Hearing was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on July 3, 1986 (51 FR 24458). A hearing was requested, was granted and was terminated as discussed in Section 1 of this Safety Evaluation Report supplement. The Licensing Board authorized the staff to make the appropriate findings on the proposed. amendment in accordance with the SER and FES. The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor the health and safety of th! public.

Principal Contributor: Peter B. Erickson Dated: July 19, 1988

r i V

o REFERENCES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 Decommissioning, Safety Evaluation Report," April 29, 1987

-- , "Request For Additional Information, Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3,"

July 23, 1987.

-- , NUREG-1166, "Final Environmental Statement for Decommissioning Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit No. 3," April 1987. _

Schuyler, J. 0., PG&E, letter to H. R. Denton, NRC, HBL-84-027, July 30, 1984.

Shiffer, J. D., PG&E, letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, "Responses to NRC staff questions of January 23, 1985," February 28, 1985.

-- , letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, "Responses to NRC staff questions of January 23, 1985 and February 14, 1985 " April 3, 1985.

-- , letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, "Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Emergency Plan Revision 0," April 4, 1985.

~

-- , letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, "Flood Hydrology," July 11, 1985.

-- , letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, "Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Criti-cality Analysis for SAFSTOR Decommissioning," July 30, 1985.

-- , letter to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, "Humboldt SAFSTOR Facility Quality Assurance Plar, Revision 1," December 13, 1985.

-- , letter to H. N. Berkow, NRC, "Custodial SAFSTOR Facility Quality Assurance Plan, Revision 1," December 13, 1985.

-- , letter to H. N. Berkow, NRC, "Proposed SAFSTOR Technical Specifications, Revision 1," March 13, 1986.

-- , letter to H. N. Berkow, NRC, "Custodial SAFSTOR Facility Quality Assurance Plan, Revision 2," March 14, 1986.

-- , letter to H. N. Berkow, NRC, "Change to Proposed SAFSTOR Technical Speci-fications," May 23, 1986.

-- , letter to H. N. Berkow, NRC, "PG&E Responses to Public Comments on DES for Decommissioning Humboldt Bay Unit 3," October 20, 1986.

-- , letter to NRC Document Control Desk, "Decommissioning - Additional Infor-mation," January 20, 1987.

-- , letter to NRC Dccument Control Desk, "Spent Fuel Pool Liner Gap Level Exceeded the Control Band," January 22, 1987.

-- , letter to NRC Document Control Desk, "SAFSTOR Technical Specifications, Revision 2." liarch 20, 1987.

-- , letter to NRC Document Control Desk, "Custodial SAFSTOR Facility Quality Assurance Plan, Revision 3," July 30, 1047

V

-2

-- , letter to NRC Document Control Desk, "Humboldt SAFSTOR Deconr.issioning-Additional Information," August 21, 1987. ,

I

-- , letter to NRC Document Control Desk, "SAFSTOR Technical Specifications, Revision 3," November 16, 1987 Haneatis, GA, PG&E, letter to NRC Docunent Control Desk, "SAFSTOR Technical Specifications, Revision 0," March 16, 1988.

~ ..

Shiffer, J. D., PG&E, letter to NRC Documen- Control Desk, "Custodial SAFSTOR l

Facility Quality Assurance Plan Revision 4,' April 21,1988.

-- , letter to NRC Document Control Desk, "SAFSTOR Technical Specifications, Revision 0," May 23, 1988.

-- , letter to NRC Document Control Desk, "Emergency Plan for SAFSTOR, Revision 1," May 23, 1988.

I l

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _