ML20212N492

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 21 to License DPR-7

ML20212N492
Person / Time
Site:	Humboldt Bay
Issue date:	08/26/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20212N482	List: ML20212N479 ML20212N487 ML20212N492
References
NUDOCS 8608280253
Download: ML20212N492 (2)

Text

-- . - -__.-

l

' l pa trouq j

'kg UNITED STATES

[ NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, g cj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../ l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR kEGULATION SUPP0? TING AMENDMENT N0.21 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-7 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-133

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 (the facility) is permanently shut down. By Amendment No. 19 issued on July 16, 1985 License No. DPR-7 was amended to possess-but-not-operate status.

All fuel has now been removed from the reactor vessel and placed in  !

the spent fuel storage pool. The reactor cooling system'and .

associated tanks and pipes have been drained and sealed. The suppression pool, below the reactor vessel, has been drained. The ,

l only water containing radionuclides that remains en site is the water ,

in the spent fuel pool, its associated systems'and in the radwaste tanks.

l

\

0 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) to: 1) upgrade requirements for the stack gas monitoring system to be more sensitive to radior.uclides

present at the facility, and 2) reduce the required number of condensate demineralizer beds from three to two to allow one of the beds to be used as a spent fuel pool demineralizer.

2.0 EVALUATION The present stack gas monitoring systeni is sensitive to halogens (radioiodine) and particulates. In addition, two gamma monitoring systems detect noble gases. With the plant permanently shut down for over 10 years, radionuclides with relatively short half lives such as radiofodines are no longer present. In addition the gamma monitoring system was designed to be sensitive to noble gas mixtures expected during reactor operations, such as xenon-138 and 135, and is relatively insensitive to krypton-85. Krypton-85 is currently the dominant noble gas in the spent fuel. The proposed stack monitoring system will be modified to ha more sensitive to krypton-85 and will continue to monitor radionuclide particulates. Radioiodine (halogen) monitoring will.be discontinued since these radionuclides are ro longer present at the facility.

We have determined that this change will improve the capability of the stack monitoring system to detect and measure radionuclides now present.

We also agree that halogen radforiuclides are no longer present at the facility due to their short half lives and no longer need to be monitored.

Thus, this change is acceptable.

8608280253 860826 PDR ADOCK 05000133 p PDR

The condensate demineralizer bed; are no longer needed for the reactor cooling system since it is now dry. Furthermore, the use of one of these beds as a spent fuel pool deminaralizer will allow the pool water to be maintained at a higher quality with a reduced radionuclide content and results in an improvement in the facility in its present permanently shutdown status. Thus, this change is acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20. The staff has determined 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 l radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed i finding that this amendment involves no significant 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 651.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 951.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental -

assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of,this amendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

We have 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 maintenance of the facility 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 or to the health and safety of the public.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ,

This evaluation was prepared by Peter B. Erickson Dated: August 26, 1986 i

l