|
|---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20212J7481999-09-29029 September 1999
Forwards Insp Rept 50-133/99-02 on 990915.No Violations Noted.Areas Examined During Insp Included Portions of Physical Security Program
HBL-99-011, Forwards 10CFR50.59 Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for 980101-981231, for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 31999-08-27027 August 1999
Forwards 10CFR50.59 Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for 980101-981231, for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3
HBL-99-014, Forwards Response to Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,1999-07-23023 July 1999
Forwards Response to Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,
ML20209D9981999-07-0808 July 1999
Ack Receipt of Which Transmitted Rev 9 to Physical Security Plan for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Under Provisions of 10CFR50.54(p).Changes Do Not Decrease Plan Effectiveness,So NRC Approval Is Not Required
HBL-99-012, Forwards Rept of Rev 29 to Hbpp Emergency Plan,Effective 990610.Changes in Rev Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan, Per 10CFR50.54(q).Plan Has Been Distributed to Region IV & Is Not Included as Part of Submittal1999-07-0707 July 1999
Forwards Rept of Rev 29 to Hbpp Emergency Plan,Effective 990610.Changes in Rev Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan, Per 10CFR50.54(q).Plan Has Been Distributed to Region IV & Is Not Included as Part of Submittal
ML18107A7011999-06-25025 June 1999
Requests Rev of NRC Records to Reflect Change of PG&E Address
ML20207E7301999-05-27027 May 1999
Discusses Reorganization of Nrr,Effective 990328 & Forwards Organizational Chart
HBL-99-008, Forwards Annual Rept of Occupational Radiation Exposure for 1998. Radiation Exposure Rept Provided on Encl Diskette in Electronic Format of Reg Guide 8.7.Without Encl1999-04-30030 April 1999
Forwards Annual Rept of Occupational Radiation Exposure for 1998. Radiation Exposure Rept Provided on Encl Diskette in Electronic Format of Reg Guide 8.7.Without Encl
ML20205L9951999-04-0808 April 1999
Forwards Insp Rept 50-133/99-01 on 990222-25 & 0308.No Violations Identified
HBL-99-006, Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept, Covering Period Jan-Dec 1998.Encl 2 Contains Revs 1 & 2 to Safstor ODCM as Required by Specification Section 4.2 of Safstor Offsite Dose Calculation Manual1999-03-31031 March 1999
Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept, Covering Period Jan-Dec 1998.Encl 2 Contains Revs 1 & 2 to Safstor ODCM as Required by Specification Section 4.2 of Safstor Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
DCL-99-038, Forwards Decommissioning Funding Repts for Diablo Canyon Power Plant,Units 1 & 2 & Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, Per Requirements of 10CFR50.75(f)1999-03-31031 March 1999
Forwards Decommissioning Funding Repts for Diablo Canyon Power Plant,Units 1 & 2 & Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, Per Requirements of 10CFR50.75(f)
HBL-99-003, Forwards Annual Facility Status & Survey Rept, for Jan-Dec 19981999-03-31031 March 1999
Forwards Annual Facility Status & Survey Rept, for Jan-Dec 1998
ML20202A9831999-01-18018 January 1999
Informs That Modesto Irrigation District No Longer Seeking Addl Interconnection with Pacific Gas & Electric Co at Pittsburg,Ca & Matters First Addressed in 980429 Comments in Opposition to Restructuring of Util Have Now Become Moot
HBL-98-021, Forwards Rept Change (Rev 28) to Hbpp Emergency Plan, Effective 981126.Updated Emergency Plan,Not Included as Part of Submittal1998-12-18018 December 1998
Forwards Rept Change (Rev 28) to Hbpp Emergency Plan, Effective 981126.Updated Emergency Plan,Not Included as Part of Submittal
ML20195H7631998-11-20020 November 1998
Forwards Insp Rept 50-133/98-04 on 980901-03,1012-17 & 20-22.No Violations Noted.Insp Focused on Activities Associated with Removal of 250 Feet Ventilation Stack
HBL-98-013, Forwards 10CFR50.59 Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for Jan-Dec 1997. Encl Annual Rept Provides Brief Description of 10CFR50.59 Facility Design Changes, Including Summary of Each SE1998-11-10010 November 1998
Forwards 10CFR50.59 Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for Jan-Dec 1997. Encl Annual Rept Provides Brief Description of 10CFR50.59 Facility Design Changes, Including Summary of Each SE
ML20154G4441998-10-0101 October 1998
Ack Receipt of Which Transmitted Rev 8 to Physical Security Plan for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Under Provisions 10CFR50.54.Based on Determination That Changes Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan,No NRC Approval Required
DCL-98-123, Submits Listed Address Changes for NRC Service Lists for Listed Individuals1998-09-0909 September 1998
Submits Listed Address Changes for NRC Service Lists for Listed Individuals
HBL-98-015, Forwards Rev 2 to DSAR for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, to Comply W/Decommissioning Rule.Dsar Was Formerly Known as Safstor Decommissioning Plan.Encl 1 Identifies & Describes Rept Changes1998-08-28028 August 1998
Forwards Rev 2 to DSAR for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, to Comply W/Decommissioning Rule.Dsar Was Formerly Known as Safstor Decommissioning Plan.Encl 1 Identifies & Describes Rept Changes
DCL-98-108, Submits 90-day Response to NRC GL 98-01, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Util Has Pursued & Continuing to Pursue Year 2000 Readiness Program Similar to That Outlined in Nei/Nusmg 97-07, Nuclear Util Year..1998-08-0707 August 1998
Submits 90-day Response to NRC GL 98-01, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Util Has Pursued & Continuing to Pursue Year 2000 Readiness Program Similar to That Outlined in Nei/Nusmg 97-07, Nuclear Util Year..
HBL-98-009, Submits Info Describing site-specifc Decommissioning Cost Estimates1998-08-0505 August 1998
Submits Info Describing site-specifc Decommissioning Cost Estimates
ML20236G0691998-06-19019 June 1998
Forwards Endorsement 123 to Neila Policy NF-228,Endorsement 145 to Neila Policy NF-113,Endorsement 124 to Neila Policy NF-228 & Endorsement 89 to Maelu Policy MF-103
L-98-027, Forwards Rev 8 to Physical Security Plan.Encl 1 Identifies & Describes Plan Changes,Which Indicated W/Rev Bars in Left Margin of Physical Security Plan.Rev Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790(d)1998-06-11011 June 1998
Forwards Rev 8 to Physical Security Plan.Encl 1 Identifies & Describes Plan Changes,Which Indicated W/Rev Bars in Left Margin of Physical Security Plan.Rev Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790(d)
HBL-98-011, Forwards Rept of Rev 27 to Hbpp Emergency Plan,Effective 980507,per 10CFR50.4 & 10CFR50.54(q).Updated Plan Has Already Been Distributed to NRC Region IV IAW Hbpp Procedures.W/O Rept1998-06-0404 June 1998
Forwards Rept of Rev 27 to Hbpp Emergency Plan,Effective 980507,per 10CFR50.4 & 10CFR50.54(q).Updated Plan Has Already Been Distributed to NRC Region IV IAW Hbpp Procedures.W/O Rept
ML20247R9091998-05-26026 May 1998
Forwards Copy of Transcript of Public Meeting Held by NRC W/Participation by PG&E on 980429 in Eureka,California Re Decommissioning of Humboldt Bay Power Plant
ML20236E7681998-05-22022 May 1998
Forwards Insp Rept 50-133/98-03 on 980427-30.No Violations Noted.Insp Included Plans for Future Decommissioning of Facility,Including Removal of Unit 3 Stack & Eventual Dry Cask Storage of Unit 3 Spent Fuel
ML20247L3571998-05-18018 May 1998
Clarifies Remark Re Discharge Through Existing Ventilation Stack to Avoid Confusion.Remark Was in Response to Question Re Purpose of Dismantlement & Replacement of Existing Ventilation Stack
ML20247F9241998-05-14014 May 1998
Forwards Insp Rept 50-133/98-02 on 980414-15.No Violations Noted.Areas Examined During Insp Included Portions of Physical Security Program.Determined That Physical Security Program Was Properly Implemented
ML20216B7291998-05-12012 May 1998
Expresses Appreciation for Support Provided for Recent Public Meeting Held at Eureka Inn on Decommissioning of Humboldt Bay Power Plant
ML20216B6801998-05-11011 May 1998
Expresses Appreciation for Outstanding Support Staff Provided for Recent Public Meeting Held at Eureka Inn on Decommissioning of Humboldt Bay Power Plant
ML20217H1161998-04-21021 April 1998
Forwards Annual Rept of Occupational Radiation Exposure, for Employees & Visitors Monitored at Humboldt Bay Power Plant During CY97.Rept on Diskette.W/O Encl
ML20216C8681998-04-0808 April 1998
Forwards Amend 32 to License DPR-7 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises TS to Implement GL 89-01 & to Incorporate Requirements of Revised 10CFR20 & App I to 10CFR50
HBL-98-008, Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept for 970101-1231. Rept Contains Comparison of Max Calculated Dose to Individual Members of Public W/Numerical Guidelines of 10CFR50 App I1998-03-31031 March 1998
Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept for 970101-1231. Rept Contains Comparison of Max Calculated Dose to Individual Members of Public W/Numerical Guidelines of 10CFR50 App I
HBL-98-006, Forwards Annual Facility Status & Survey Rept for 1997. Section a Addresses Facility Status & Section B Presents Results of Monitoring Performed for Radiological Environ Monitoring Program1998-03-31031 March 1998
Forwards Annual Facility Status & Survey Rept for 1997. Section a Addresses Facility Status & Section B Presents Results of Monitoring Performed for Radiological Environ Monitoring Program
HBL-98-003, Forwards Corrected TSs Re LAR 96-02,in Entirety W/ Affected Pages Retyped1998-03-13013 March 1998
Forwards Corrected TSs Re LAR 96-02,in Entirety W/ Affected Pages Retyped
HBL-98-002, Submits Updated Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Rept for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3. Safstor Decommissioning Plan Will Be Considered FSAR for Hbpp1998-02-27027 February 1998
Submits Updated Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Rept for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3. Safstor Decommissioning Plan Will Be Considered FSAR for Hbpp
ML20203K9691998-02-27027 February 1998
Forwards Insp Rept 50-133/98-01 on 980126-29.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Reviewed as Part of Insp Included Compliance W/Selected TS of License,Review of 1997 Annual Exercise & Evaluation of Facility Re Decommissioning Plan
HBL-98-001, Informs That Existing Hbpp PM Program Adequately Meets Requirements of Maint Rule.Summary of Program & Basis for Determining Maint Rule Compliance at Plant,Encl1998-01-26026 January 1998
Informs That Existing Hbpp PM Program Adequately Meets Requirements of Maint Rule.Summary of Program & Basis for Determining Maint Rule Compliance at Plant,Encl
ML20198J4791998-01-0707 January 1998
Informs That LL Wheeler Assumed Project Mgt Responsibilities for Humboldt Bay on 971229.LL Wheeler Can Be Contacted at Listed E-mail Address
ML20199B3851997-11-13013 November 1997
Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-133/97-02 on 971001
HBL-97-016, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-133/97-02.Corrective Actions:Correctly Reset Process Water Monitor Warning High & Low Alarms & re-educated All Operators on Proper Method to Set Process Water Monitor1997-10-27027 October 1997
Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-133/97-02.Corrective Actions:Correctly Reset Process Water Monitor Warning High & Low Alarms & re-educated All Operators on Proper Method to Set Process Water Monitor
HBL-97-015, Submits Inventory Changes at Unit 3 from 970401-0930 for Matls Re Enriched U Fuel,Plutonium in Fuel,Fission Counters & Incore Flux Detectors.Encl 2 Provides Data Required by Form DOE/NRC-741.W/o Encl1997-10-0909 October 1997
Submits Inventory Changes at Unit 3 from 970401-0930 for Matls Re Enriched U Fuel,Plutonium in Fuel,Fission Counters & Incore Flux Detectors.Encl 2 Provides Data Required by Form DOE/NRC-741.W/o Encl
ML20217D6191997-10-0101 October 1997
Forwards Insp Rept 50-133/97-02 on 970513-0828 & Nov.Nrc Will Use Licensee Response to NOV to Determine Whether Further Enforcement Action Necessary
HBL-97-012, Forwards Rept of Rev 26 to Plant Emergency Plan,Effective 970801.Changes Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan1997-08-28028 August 1997
Forwards Rept of Rev 26 to Plant Emergency Plan,Effective 970801.Changes Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan
ML20210H4671997-08-0202 August 1997
Requests That NRC Suspend Investigation & Review of Issues Raised by Modesto Irrigation District & Transmission Agency of Northern CA Re Contention That PG&E Had Violated Nuclear License Conditions Known as Stanislaus Commitments
ML20149K8321997-07-25025 July 1997
Ack Receipt of Transmitting Rev 7 to Physical Security Plan,Submitted Under Provisions of 10CFR50.54(p). Changes Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan & No NRC Approval Is Required
HBL-97-009, Provides Addl Justification to Support TS Change Request Contained in LAR 96-02 ,re Establishment of Radiological Effluents Control Program & in Response to 970416 Telcon1997-06-12012 June 1997
Provides Addl Justification to Support TS Change Request Contained in LAR 96-02 ,re Establishment of Radiological Effluents Control Program & in Response to 970416 Telcon
L-97-035, Forwards Info Re Changes to Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3 Physical Security Plan.Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan & Are Submitted Per 10CFR50.54(p). Encls Withheld Per 10CFR2.790(d)1997-04-0909 April 1997
Forwards Info Re Changes to Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3 Physical Security Plan.Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan & Are Submitted Per 10CFR50.54(p). Encls Withheld Per 10CFR2.790(d)
L-97-033, Confirms Final Disposition of Specific Hazardous Wastes Shipped to IT Corp Panoche & Vine Hill Facilities from Plant in Jul 19861997-04-0202 April 1997
Confirms Final Disposition of Specific Hazardous Wastes Shipped to IT Corp Panoche & Vine Hill Facilities from Plant in Jul 1986
HBL-97-003, Documents Utils Understanding of Results in Discussions from Meeting W/Nrc Personnel to Discuss Application of New Decommissioning Rule to Hbpp1997-02-20020 February 1997
Documents Utils Understanding of Results in Discussions from Meeting W/Nrc Personnel to Discuss Application of New Decommissioning Rule to Hbpp
1999-09-29
[Table view]
Category:INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARHBL-99-011, Forwards 10CFR50.59 Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for 980101-981231, for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 31999-08-27027 August 1999
Forwards 10CFR50.59 Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for 980101-981231, for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3
HBL-99-014, Forwards Response to Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,1999-07-23023 July 1999
Forwards Response to Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,
HBL-99-012, Forwards Rept of Rev 29 to Hbpp Emergency Plan,Effective 990610.Changes in Rev Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan, Per 10CFR50.54(q).Plan Has Been Distributed to Region IV & Is Not Included as Part of Submittal1999-07-0707 July 1999
Forwards Rept of Rev 29 to Hbpp Emergency Plan,Effective 990610.Changes in Rev Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan, Per 10CFR50.54(q).Plan Has Been Distributed to Region IV & Is Not Included as Part of Submittal
ML18107A7011999-06-25025 June 1999
Requests Rev of NRC Records to Reflect Change of PG&E Address
HBL-99-008, Forwards Annual Rept of Occupational Radiation Exposure for 1998. Radiation Exposure Rept Provided on Encl Diskette in Electronic Format of Reg Guide 8.7.Without Encl1999-04-30030 April 1999
Forwards Annual Rept of Occupational Radiation Exposure for 1998. Radiation Exposure Rept Provided on Encl Diskette in Electronic Format of Reg Guide 8.7.Without Encl
HBL-99-003, Forwards Annual Facility Status & Survey Rept, for Jan-Dec 19981999-03-31031 March 1999
Forwards Annual Facility Status & Survey Rept, for Jan-Dec 1998
HBL-99-006, Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept, Covering Period Jan-Dec 1998.Encl 2 Contains Revs 1 & 2 to Safstor ODCM as Required by Specification Section 4.2 of Safstor Offsite Dose Calculation Manual1999-03-31031 March 1999
Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept, Covering Period Jan-Dec 1998.Encl 2 Contains Revs 1 & 2 to Safstor ODCM as Required by Specification Section 4.2 of Safstor Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
DCL-99-038, Forwards Decommissioning Funding Repts for Diablo Canyon Power Plant,Units 1 & 2 & Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, Per Requirements of 10CFR50.75(f)1999-03-31031 March 1999
Forwards Decommissioning Funding Repts for Diablo Canyon Power Plant,Units 1 & 2 & Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, Per Requirements of 10CFR50.75(f)
ML20202A9831999-01-18018 January 1999
Informs That Modesto Irrigation District No Longer Seeking Addl Interconnection with Pacific Gas & Electric Co at Pittsburg,Ca & Matters First Addressed in 980429 Comments in Opposition to Restructuring of Util Have Now Become Moot
HBL-98-021, Forwards Rept Change (Rev 28) to Hbpp Emergency Plan, Effective 981126.Updated Emergency Plan,Not Included as Part of Submittal1998-12-18018 December 1998
Forwards Rept Change (Rev 28) to Hbpp Emergency Plan, Effective 981126.Updated Emergency Plan,Not Included as Part of Submittal
HBL-98-013, Forwards 10CFR50.59 Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for Jan-Dec 1997. Encl Annual Rept Provides Brief Description of 10CFR50.59 Facility Design Changes, Including Summary of Each SE1998-11-10010 November 1998
Forwards 10CFR50.59 Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for Jan-Dec 1997. Encl Annual Rept Provides Brief Description of 10CFR50.59 Facility Design Changes, Including Summary of Each SE
DCL-98-123, Submits Listed Address Changes for NRC Service Lists for Listed Individuals1998-09-0909 September 1998
Submits Listed Address Changes for NRC Service Lists for Listed Individuals
HBL-98-015, Forwards Rev 2 to DSAR for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, to Comply W/Decommissioning Rule.Dsar Was Formerly Known as Safstor Decommissioning Plan.Encl 1 Identifies & Describes Rept Changes1998-08-28028 August 1998
Forwards Rev 2 to DSAR for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, to Comply W/Decommissioning Rule.Dsar Was Formerly Known as Safstor Decommissioning Plan.Encl 1 Identifies & Describes Rept Changes
DCL-98-108, Submits 90-day Response to NRC GL 98-01, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Util Has Pursued & Continuing to Pursue Year 2000 Readiness Program Similar to That Outlined in Nei/Nusmg 97-07, Nuclear Util Year..1998-08-0707 August 1998
Submits 90-day Response to NRC GL 98-01, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Util Has Pursued & Continuing to Pursue Year 2000 Readiness Program Similar to That Outlined in Nei/Nusmg 97-07, Nuclear Util Year..
HBL-98-009, Submits Info Describing site-specifc Decommissioning Cost Estimates1998-08-0505 August 1998
Submits Info Describing site-specifc Decommissioning Cost Estimates
ML20236G0691998-06-19019 June 1998
Forwards Endorsement 123 to Neila Policy NF-228,Endorsement 145 to Neila Policy NF-113,Endorsement 124 to Neila Policy NF-228 & Endorsement 89 to Maelu Policy MF-103
L-98-027, Forwards Rev 8 to Physical Security Plan.Encl 1 Identifies & Describes Plan Changes,Which Indicated W/Rev Bars in Left Margin of Physical Security Plan.Rev Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790(d)1998-06-11011 June 1998
Forwards Rev 8 to Physical Security Plan.Encl 1 Identifies & Describes Plan Changes,Which Indicated W/Rev Bars in Left Margin of Physical Security Plan.Rev Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790(d)
HBL-98-011, Forwards Rept of Rev 27 to Hbpp Emergency Plan,Effective 980507,per 10CFR50.4 & 10CFR50.54(q).Updated Plan Has Already Been Distributed to NRC Region IV IAW Hbpp Procedures.W/O Rept1998-06-0404 June 1998
Forwards Rept of Rev 27 to Hbpp Emergency Plan,Effective 980507,per 10CFR50.4 & 10CFR50.54(q).Updated Plan Has Already Been Distributed to NRC Region IV IAW Hbpp Procedures.W/O Rept
ML20247L3571998-05-18018 May 1998
Clarifies Remark Re Discharge Through Existing Ventilation Stack to Avoid Confusion.Remark Was in Response to Question Re Purpose of Dismantlement & Replacement of Existing Ventilation Stack
ML20217H1161998-04-21021 April 1998
Forwards Annual Rept of Occupational Radiation Exposure, for Employees & Visitors Monitored at Humboldt Bay Power Plant During CY97.Rept on Diskette.W/O Encl
HBL-98-006, Forwards Annual Facility Status & Survey Rept for 1997. Section a Addresses Facility Status & Section B Presents Results of Monitoring Performed for Radiological Environ Monitoring Program1998-03-31031 March 1998
Forwards Annual Facility Status & Survey Rept for 1997. Section a Addresses Facility Status & Section B Presents Results of Monitoring Performed for Radiological Environ Monitoring Program
HBL-98-008, Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept for 970101-1231. Rept Contains Comparison of Max Calculated Dose to Individual Members of Public W/Numerical Guidelines of 10CFR50 App I1998-03-31031 March 1998
Forwards Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept for 970101-1231. Rept Contains Comparison of Max Calculated Dose to Individual Members of Public W/Numerical Guidelines of 10CFR50 App I
HBL-98-003, Forwards Corrected TSs Re LAR 96-02,in Entirety W/ Affected Pages Retyped1998-03-13013 March 1998
Forwards Corrected TSs Re LAR 96-02,in Entirety W/ Affected Pages Retyped
HBL-98-002, Submits Updated Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Rept for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3. Safstor Decommissioning Plan Will Be Considered FSAR for Hbpp1998-02-27027 February 1998
Submits Updated Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Rept for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3. Safstor Decommissioning Plan Will Be Considered FSAR for Hbpp
HBL-98-001, Informs That Existing Hbpp PM Program Adequately Meets Requirements of Maint Rule.Summary of Program & Basis for Determining Maint Rule Compliance at Plant,Encl1998-01-26026 January 1998
Informs That Existing Hbpp PM Program Adequately Meets Requirements of Maint Rule.Summary of Program & Basis for Determining Maint Rule Compliance at Plant,Encl
HBL-97-016, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-133/97-02.Corrective Actions:Correctly Reset Process Water Monitor Warning High & Low Alarms & re-educated All Operators on Proper Method to Set Process Water Monitor1997-10-27027 October 1997
Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-133/97-02.Corrective Actions:Correctly Reset Process Water Monitor Warning High & Low Alarms & re-educated All Operators on Proper Method to Set Process Water Monitor
HBL-97-012, Forwards Rept of Rev 26 to Plant Emergency Plan,Effective 970801.Changes Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan1997-08-28028 August 1997
Forwards Rept of Rev 26 to Plant Emergency Plan,Effective 970801.Changes Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan
ML20210H4671997-08-0202 August 1997
Requests That NRC Suspend Investigation & Review of Issues Raised by Modesto Irrigation District & Transmission Agency of Northern CA Re Contention That PG&E Had Violated Nuclear License Conditions Known as Stanislaus Commitments
HBL-97-009, Provides Addl Justification to Support TS Change Request Contained in LAR 96-02 ,re Establishment of Radiological Effluents Control Program & in Response to 970416 Telcon1997-06-12012 June 1997
Provides Addl Justification to Support TS Change Request Contained in LAR 96-02 ,re Establishment of Radiological Effluents Control Program & in Response to 970416 Telcon
L-97-035, Forwards Info Re Changes to Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3 Physical Security Plan.Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan & Are Submitted Per 10CFR50.54(p). Encls Withheld Per 10CFR2.790(d)1997-04-0909 April 1997
Forwards Info Re Changes to Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3 Physical Security Plan.Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan & Are Submitted Per 10CFR50.54(p). Encls Withheld Per 10CFR2.790(d)
L-97-033, Confirms Final Disposition of Specific Hazardous Wastes Shipped to IT Corp Panoche & Vine Hill Facilities from Plant in Jul 19861997-04-0202 April 1997
Confirms Final Disposition of Specific Hazardous Wastes Shipped to IT Corp Panoche & Vine Hill Facilities from Plant in Jul 1986
HBL-97-003, Documents Utils Understanding of Results in Discussions from Meeting W/Nrc Personnel to Discuss Application of New Decommissioning Rule to Hbpp1997-02-20020 February 1997
Documents Utils Understanding of Results in Discussions from Meeting W/Nrc Personnel to Discuss Application of New Decommissioning Rule to Hbpp
HBL-97-001, Submits Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3 for Reporting Interval Jan-Dec 19951997-01-28028 January 1997
Submits Annual Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments for Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3 for Reporting Interval Jan-Dec 1995
ML20133F8961997-01-0909 January 1997
Responds to NRC Ltr of 961206 Received on 961210 Which Requested Further Info Re Utils Violations of Conditions of Its Nuclear Licenses Designated to Promote & Protect Competition in Bulk Power Market in Northern & Central CA
ML20133F8721997-01-0909 January 1997
Acks & Responds to NRC Ltr of 961206 Received by Undersigned on 961210 Requesting Further Info to Document Tancs Assertion,Per Filing on 960429 That Util Has Violated Terms & Conditions of Nuclear Power Project Licenses
HBL-96-027, Forwards Application for Amend to License DPR-7 to Relocate Controls & Limitations on RETS & Radiological Environmental Monitoring to ODCM & PCP1996-12-0909 December 1996
Forwards Application for Amend to License DPR-7 to Relocate Controls & Limitations on RETS & Radiological Environmental Monitoring to ODCM & PCP
HBL-93-060, Forwards Rev 6 to Pacific Gas & Electric Co Humboldt Bay Plant Unit 3 - Safstor QA Plan1993-10-14014 October 1993
Forwards Rev 6 to Pacific Gas & Electric Co Humboldt Bay Plant Unit 3 - Safstor QA Plan
ML20057F7271993-10-0808 October 1993
Forwards LAR 93-02,revising TS Section II, Site, Section V, Monitoring Sys & Section VII, Administrative Controls
ML20059C4221993-09-0808 September 1993
Forwards Humboldt Bay Power Plant Updated Newsletter Sent to People Living within Ten Miles of Power Plant During Sept 1993
HBL-93-050, Forwards Rev 3 to Emergency Plan to Include Local Ltrs of Agreements W/Local Hosps,Humboldt County Fire Depts & Local Ambulance Svcs.Informs That Because Plan Incorporated Into Hbpp Plant Manuals,Vol 3,Rev 21 Appears at Top of Each Page1993-08-17017 August 1993
Forwards Rev 3 to Emergency Plan to Include Local Ltrs of Agreements W/Local Hosps,Humboldt County Fire Depts & Local Ambulance Svcs.Informs That Because Plan Incorporated Into Hbpp Plant Manuals,Vol 3,Rev 21 Appears at Top of Each Page
HBL-93-005, Forwards Public Version of Rev 2 to Emergency Plan.Vol 3,Rev 20 Appears at Top of Each Page of Rev to Reflect Incorporation of Emergency Plan Into Hbpp Plant Manuals & Current Sys for Maint of Manuals.W/930202 Release Memo1993-01-19019 January 1993
Forwards Public Version of Rev 2 to Emergency Plan.Vol 3,Rev 20 Appears at Top of Each Page of Rev to Reflect Incorporation of Emergency Plan Into Hbpp Plant Manuals & Current Sys for Maint of Manuals.W/930202 Release Memo
HBL-90-038, Forwards Decommissioning Financial Assurance Certification Rept,Per 10CFR50.751990-07-24024 July 1990
Forwards Decommissioning Financial Assurance Certification Rept,Per 10CFR50.75
HBL-90-036, Forwards Replacement Page 13-1,further Revising Section 13.2 of 880826 Rev 2 to Physical Security Plan.Rev Adds Specific Source Ref to Commitment Document & Retention of security- Related Documents.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21)1990-07-17017 July 1990
Forwards Replacement Page 13-1,further Revising Section 13.2 of 880826 Rev 2 to Physical Security Plan.Rev Adds Specific Source Ref to Commitment Document & Retention of security- Related Documents.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21)
HBL-89-041, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-133/89-02.Corrective Action:High Level Vault Containing Drums of Waste Immediately Posted as High Radiation Area1989-09-11011 September 1989
Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-133/89-02.Corrective Action:High Level Vault Containing Drums of Waste Immediately Posted as High Radiation Area
ML20246E6061989-08-16016 August 1989
Forwards Endorsements 10 & 11 to Nelia Certificate N-74 & Maelu Certificate M-74 & Endorsements 7 & 8 to Nelia Certificate N-76 & Maelu Certificate M-76,respectively
DCL-89-201, Discusses Notification to NRC Re Employees Potential Safety Issues,Per NRC .Licensee Sent Clarifying Ltrs to Employees Stating That Employees Free to Contact NRC of Any Safety Concerns W/O Fear of Retribution in Any Form1989-07-28028 July 1989
Discusses Notification to NRC Re Employees Potential Safety Issues,Per NRC .Licensee Sent Clarifying Ltrs to Employees Stating That Employees Free to Contact NRC of Any Safety Concerns W/O Fear of Retribution in Any Form
ML20244B9261989-06-14014 June 1989
Submits Certificate of Insurance for Plant,Certifying That Insurance Has Been Effected W/Nuclear Mutual Ltd.Policy Term Is 890401-900401
ML20246J7051989-06-0909 June 1989
Forwards Application for Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(W) Filed Per 10CFR50.12(a).Application Relates to Utils Request for Reduction in on-site Property Damage Insurance from Current $100,000 to $63,160,000
DCL-89-149, Requests Renewal of Approval of QA Programs for Radioactive Matl Packages1989-05-30030 May 1989
Requests Renewal of Approval of QA Programs for Radioactive Matl Packages
ML20244B4881989-04-0707 April 1989
Forwards Endorsement 35 to Maelu Policy MF-103 & Endorsements 65 & 116 to Nelia Policies NF-228 & NF-113, Respectively
1999-08-27
[Table view]
Category:PUBLIC ENTITY/CITIZEN/ORGANIZATION/MEDIA TO NRC
MONTHYEARML20214P1261987-05-28028 May 1987
Requests Order Requiring Answers to Encl Interrogatories & Preservation of Right to Take Depositions of NRC Witnesses 30 Days After Disclosure of Witnesses Names.Proof of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20215M0161987-05-0606 May 1987
Requests That Joint Intervenors Be Added to Svc List Re Facility License Proceeding
ML20214D1541986-11-14014 November 1986
Appreciates NRC Response to Request Re Qualifying as Intervenor for Facility Decommissioning
ML20214P5951986-09-10010 September 1986
Requests Confirmation Re Status of Comments on Des for Decommissioning Facility
ML20203K6981986-08-14014 August 1986
Expresses Concern Re Exposure to Radiation at Elementary School Across from Plant,Preburial Containment,Toxic Threat & Poisonous Residues.Advises of Need for Responsive & Responsible Governmental Policies
ML20206L4141986-08-14014 August 1986
Expresses Concern Re Des Suggestion That Decon Is Only Viable Alternative in Decommissioning Process for Facility. Des Contains Numerous Instances of Vague Language.More Research Should Be Done Re Decommissioning Process
ML20206L4771986-08-14014 August 1986
Comments on Des for Decommissioning of Facility. Recommendation That Plant & Spent Fuel Remain on Site for 30 More Yrs,Plus Decommissioning Time,Not in Best Interest of Public Health & Safety
ML20214K3421986-08-14014 August 1986
Comments Re Des for Decommissioning Facility.Document Poorly Prepared & Data Insufficient to Support Conclusions.Requests Local Public Hearing
ML20203L2801986-08-13013 August 1986
Requests Local Public Hearing for Decommissioning of Facility.Disagrees with Conclusion Re Spent Fuel Assembly Storage.Extension of Comment Period Not Sufficient.Comments on Des Provided
ML20206M5981986-08-12012 August 1986
Comments on Des for Decommissioning of Plant.Crack & Leak in Holding Pond Does Not Assure Util Has Ability to Safely Contain & Store Radioactive Fuel Rods & Waste.Proposing That Des & Safstor Be Applied Generically Absurd
ML20214K1451986-08-12012 August 1986
Comments on Des (NUREG-1166) Re Facility Decommissioning. Assumption That Safstor Sole Viable Alternative & Failure to Fully Discuss Safstor Consequences Criticized.Des Does Not Satisfy NEPA
ML20214K3441986-08-10010 August 1986
Comments on NUREG-1166 Re Des for Decommissioning Facility. Des Inadequate & Fails to Meet Min Requirements of Natl Environ Policy Act
ML20214J7781986-08-0808 August 1986
Urges Hearing to Air Concerns of Humboldt County Residents Re Util Safestor & Release Plans & 30-yr Dismantling Per Des (NUREG-0166).Rate of Cancer in Area Already Higher than Other Areas in State of CA
ML20214H9901986-08-0707 August 1986
Comments on Des for Plant Decommissioning.Failure to Hold Public Hearing Criticized.Urges Immediate Development of Plant Dismantling Plan Rather than Wait Until Near End of 30-yr Safstor Period
ML20214J3791986-08-0606 August 1986
Denounces Des for Decommissioning as Grossly Inadequate, Vague in Analysis & Deficient in Appraisal of Alternatives. Risk of Leaving Highly Radioactive Matl Sitting in Leaky Pools Over Three Earthquake Faults for 30 Yrs Too Great
ML20204J0201986-08-0404 August 1986
Comments on Des (NUREG-1166) on Facility Decommissioning.Fes Must Be Substantially Improved to Comply W/Provisions of Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA
ML20203L3221986-08-0101 August 1986
Comments on Des for Decommissioning of Facility.Recommends Complete Decommissioning & Dismantling of Facility for More Realistic Cost Basis
ML20207E7661986-07-14014 July 1986
Comments on Des (NUREG-0166) for Decommissioning of Facility.Rept Inadequate Re Estuarine & Marine Ecosystem
ML20202F5721986-06-25025 June 1986
Forwards Petitions for Formal Public Hearing Re Des for Reactor Decommissioning
ML20202F4711986-06-24024 June 1986
Requests Public Hearing on Des During Comment Period to Allow Max Public Participation
ML20206J2821986-06-23023 June 1986
Requests EIS for Decommissioning of Plant & Hearing in Humboldt County on Decommissioning
ML20206J5671986-06-23023 June 1986
Opposes Util Proposal to Allow Facility to Lie Fallow Until 2015.Fuel Storage Pool Leaks & Danger Exists in Storing Radioactive Matls in Plant Incapable of Withstanding Earthquake
ML20199E0991986-06-17017 June 1986
Requests Public Hearings in Eureka,Ca for Decommissioning of Plant.Opposes Onsite Radwaste Storage
ML20206D4881986-06-12012 June 1986
Requests That Public Comment Hearing Be Held in Eureka,Ca Re Decommissioning of Plant
ML20205Q0811986-05-25025 May 1986
Comments on Des for Decommissioning of Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3.NEPA Requires Consideration of Listed Comments in Final Document
ML20205Q3951986-05-22022 May 1986
Requests Extension of Time for Commenting on Des for Decommissioning from 860616 to mid-Aug 1986 Due to Complexity of Document
ML20205Q0551986-05-22022 May 1986
Requests 60-day Extension of Public Comment Period Re Facility Des for Decommissioning.Period Currently Scheduled to End on 860616.Redwood Alliance Informing Public of Right to Review Document
ML20205P1041986-05-15015 May 1986
Requests Des for Decommissioning of Facility in Order to Submit Comments by 860610 Closing Date
ML20205P0601986-05-13013 May 1986
Comments on Des for Decommissioning Facility.Statement Inadequate & Does Not Address Several Major Health & Safety Concerns,Including Earthquakes.Serious Work on Rev to Final Draft Recommended
ML20137L8131986-01-22022 January 1986
Requests Des on Util Proposed Plan to Decommission Facility
ML20137B0791986-01-13013 January 1986
Requests That EIS Re Decommissioning of Plant Be Sent to Listed Address
ML20137C8211986-01-0303 January 1986
Requests That EIS Re Decommissioning of Plant Be Forwarded to Listed Address.If Document Not Yet Issued,Anticipated Release Date Requested
ML20133B3391985-07-27027 July 1985
Ack Receipt of NRC Ltr of Thanks for Comments on Decommissioning of Facility.Supports Facility Startup,Due to Waste of Time,Money & Energy to Decommission
ML20127M9201985-05-0808 May 1985
Requests Des for Decommissioning & Info Re Issue Development
ML20134D5881985-05-0808 May 1985
FOIA Request for Documents Re NRC Proposed Decommissioning Rule & Implementation of Rule to Decommissioned Reactors
ML20140D9191984-12-15015 December 1984
Requests Des Re Decommissioning for Studies & Comment
ML20140D8001984-12-10010 December 1984
Comments on Des Re Facility Decommissioning.Des Should Address Listed Concerns.Postponing Decommissioning for 30 Yrs Not Safest Option.Facility Should Be Cleaned Up
ML20058F8001982-06-0808 June 1982
Demands Facility Be Decommissioned
ML20126M3891981-06-15015 June 1981
Supports Facility Decommissioning
ML20126M1801981-06-0404 June 1981
Requests Facility Decommissioning
ML20126A6091980-01-24024 January 1980
Requests That ASLB Schedule Public Hearings to Consider Safety Risks to General Public.Community Is Threatened by Currently Active Earthquake Faults Beneath Plant & in Surrounding Area
ML20126A6121980-01-22022 January 1980
Comments on NRC Decision Not to Oppose Util Request for Nine Month Reprieve for Completing Geological Survey Re Facility Seismic Study.Decision Should Be Overruled
ML20126A6161980-01-13013 January 1980
Requests That Hearings Be Held Re Facility OL
ML20126D2791980-01-0505 January 1980
Urges ASLB to Move on Hearings Re Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20125C1941979-12-11011 December 1979
Expresses Concern Over NRC Cancellation of Plant Insp.Urges Insp Be Held & Plant Be Permanently Closed
1987-05-06
[Table view] |
Text
.
August 6, 1986 Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US NRC Washington, DC 20555 Members of the NRC:
I have read the DES for decommissioning Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit
- 3 (Docket #50-133) . I find the DES grossly inadequate to cover such a scrious and far-reaching subject; vague in its analysis; and deficient in its appraisal of alternatives to the utility's proposed action.
My comments will follow the order and page numbers of the DES.
Pg. v, PP (2): Terming the propzed storage " safe" is vague and cynical.
Also,, in. light of recent waste storage developments, "until a Federal repository is available" could be longer than the 30 years: this possibility is not engaged in the DES.
PP (3): If seismic dangers were too great to operate the plant, they are too great to use the same facility for long-term storage of waste, for which the site was not designed. Six active or potential earthquake faults are within reach of the site: Little Salmon, Bay Entrance, Buhne Point, Falor-Korbel, Cape Mendo-cino-False Cape Shear Zone, and the Mendocino Fracbure Zone.
More may be revealed.
PP (Sa): There is no evidence given that this is the " sole" viable al-ternative.
- Also, the " generic determination" is worthless, because Hum-boldt Bay's seismic situation places it at the extreme danger end of the spectrum assessed. Humboldt does not fit into an average scenario, because of the grossly different site-l specific problems. (An example of the meaninglessness of apply-l n ing generic studies to vastly varying conditions are the cost g estimates for decommissioning: these generic estimates were 88 widely accepted, but have proven way off base for individual
$o plants.)
h
- Why were not the following possibilities for spent fuel storage assessed?: Idaho Labs; WIPP in New Mexico; Hanford; f0 i 8e Savannah River; or any other DOE experimental programs. The
$$c one-time high risk of transporting may be safer than the on-going, 30-year risk of seismic or oceah front disaster. v o l Pg. vi, PP (e): " negligibly small likelinood" of criticality is excessively i
.- (2) vrgua. Clocr cvidenco must b3 prasent d.
Pg. vi, PP(f): "very small-fractions of the PAG 1evels." The upper limits of doses could well be much higher if the DES evaluated all the avenues of possible release adequately. Larger-than-expected earthquakes (of which there have been several lately in: California); massive flooding due to polar cap melt (pre-dicted by some within the 30-year time-frame); tsunamis from far-away events; terrorist attack; wartime events -- cumula-tively, the risk of disastrous event happening is not minimal, but rather substantially probable. The DES neglects to assess these possibilities -- some at all, others inadequately.
Pg.1-2, PP 1: " require a 15-year extention of the license" This is not true, since the the Federal Repository is suonosed to be operational by 1998, before the current license expires. Once the fuel is then removed, the plant should be dismantled. It will have al-ready sat idle for more than 20 years, long enough for most short-lived radioisotopes to have decayed. **
1316: "not presently feasible" -- The DECON alternative is dismissed out of hand, with no investigation of moving spent fuel assem-blies to any of the above-named facilities; to Morris, Ill.;
to Diablo Canyon; or to another new temporary site with fewer seismic, coastal,.or population problems (for instance, the Nevada test-site, already strongly contaminated and policed.)
Pg.1-3, PP 1: "The entombment structure may also fail as a result of seismic events with a potential for a release of radioactivity." This is the reason given for rejecting entombment; yet the non-entombed storage structure being proposed would be even more prone to earthquakes! The DES is totally illogical here.
1.3 3.: "all fuel assemblies... and radioactive fluids and wastes should be removed from the site." Is there a place to ship them?
"the most cost-effective of alternatives" -- where is the data?
" generic determination" -- strongly suspect; see above.
Pg. 1-4, last PP: "only difference" -- This totally ignores the extreme i
differences the coastal seismic zene at Humboldt presents, in 1
- Can PG&E show that another 15 years will result in additional significant decay, or significant exposure reduction? If not, why the full 30 years?
(3) ocntrast to cinert cny cita furth:r inlcndt Th;n tha DES ha2 tha .
audacity to worry about the costs of " seismic considerations of the ISFSI", were it to be sited einewhere!
Pg.1-5, PPi: "it wound have greater environmental impact thanam.onsite fuel storage." -- Not if there's a release of radioactivity caused by seismic movement at the proposed site!
last PP: "not proceeding with a decommissioning plan could introduce uncertainty... eventually the residual radioactivity would have to be removed.." -- By the same logic, SAFESTOR provides more uncertainty than DECON, and leaves residual radioactivity for a longer time. This was not addressed in evaluating the earlier alternatives.
Pg. 2-1, PP 3: "A cover will be installed" -- When? What kind of cover?
PP 4: "This leakage was attenuated" -- but apparently will continue, at a reduced rate, for thirty years? The California Coastal Commission, in commenting on thisspragraph, said: "There is a greater risk for a higher level of soil contamination than has been indicated in the DES."
Pg. 2-5, PP 2: "The water from the liner gap is pumped to the radwaste sys-tem." -- These pumps will have to operate flawlessly for 30 years to maintain;the proposed level of leakage. What provis-ions have been made to insure this?
2.2 (1): "until DOE has a permanent Federal repository" -- This might be a very long time, what with recent lawsuits filed by all' of the proposed siting states' governors. The DES doesn't address the impacts of a longer-than-expected wait; why?
Pg. 2-6: " set aside and accrue funds for DECON activities." -- Only,1% of the current estimated cost ($600,000 out of $60 million) has been set aside to date. The actual cost will probably be much higher,.
due to inflation and regulations which are becoming steadily stricter and more expansive each year. Where are the funds to be kept? Who controls them? What if the company fails during the 30 years? Will the money then exist to cover the real dismantlement?
Is there any guarantee that the total necessary funding will be available even if the company is " solvent" in 20157 What will be left on Humboldt Bay's shores if not?
Pg. 3-1, PP. 3: "of which 0.22 million dollars is allocated for Unit 3.."
Is this not an unrealistically low figure? Where is the sup-porting data?
o (4)
Pg. 3-2, PP. 3 @B;cauto cf tha 1cng tino that hao clap cd..." -- Tha fuel was removed from the rencter in 1984, not cv:n tro y: ara ago!
3 1.5: "No mechanism for impacting... is evident." This is unpardon-ably vague. A DES is properly supposed to evaluate impacts which may become evident during the length of the proposal.
Any of the many accidents which could happen during SAFEST 3R would provide ample " mechanism for impacting" . . .
Pg. 3-3, 31.7: " occasional release from the liquid waste treatment system."
- What liquids will remain in the Unit? Isn' t the plan to have it flushed at the outset?
" diluted with the cooling water flow from the two fossil-fueled units." -- What guarantee does PG&E make that these i two unite will remain operational throughout the 30 years?
What will do the diluting if not?
"some metallic products... not expected to occur at toxic levels." There will obviously be some radioactive effluent here; how much? and how hot? This isn' t datal And " expected" is very vague when we're dealing with toxicity to health.
3 2: : "releasec of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents." --
What releases? How much?
Pg. 3 4, PP 1: "small quantities of radioactivity...will be released to the environment." -- Why will these releases happen? How much is "small"?
PP 2: "Little transportation of radioactive waste from the site.."
What will be transported? How will it travel? How much is "little"? These statements are too vague.
PP 3: What will the radiation inventory be in 2000 versus 20157 Versus now?
PP.6: What was the basis of these estimates?
PP 7: There is still much room for debate in the mediaal community about estimating health effects of radiation exposure. There is no generally accepted threshhold under which exposure is
" safe".
Pg. 3-5, PP4: "2 chances in 100..." -- When? How does the probability differ between now and 2015. If the difference is negligible, why wait the 30 years?
Pg. 3-6, PP3: " wastewater from ongoing decontamination activities..." --
I
. (5) !
What activitics cra th::07 Ba cpecific.
Pg. 3-6, PP 5: "If contamination is ... suspected in a batch" -- Does this reveal that not every batch of waste will be tested?
"After processing" -- How clean is clean enough? Specify.
PP 6: " stored in a shielded area" -- With what degree of protection?
For how long?
PP 7: " packaged for shipment and stored. . ." -- For how long? Indefi-nitely? Specify.
"The handling of activated components will be similar ... as appropriate." ;This is extremely vague; elaborate. Activated waste is pretty nasty stuff. What plans are there for trans-uranics? Will anybody take them?
Pg. 3-7, PPi: Will Richland take all the solid waste, or do new quotas preclude that? Where else?
Pg. 3-9, PP 2: There has been some evidence of deterioration over time of these neutron-absorbing blankets. What surveillance does the licensee propose to monitor this over 30 years?
" to insure sub-criticality af ter any event.. ." Is this "insur-ance" realistic in the event of a truly major earthquake?
Pg. 3-10, 3 2 3.4: "Cridcality potential of stored spent fuel.." Cynthia Pollack, author of Worldwatch Paper 69, " Decommissioning:
Nuclear Power's Missing Link", asserts this matter to be "the most severe threat" of all of the dangers posed by SAFESTOR. All of the speculations in this sect 6on of the DES are moot in the event of an unusually large earthquake near Humboldt Bay. Most experts are predicting such a quake somewhere in California within the next 20 years.
Pg. 3-11, PPs 3-7: " tacit assumption" , "very unlikely" , " negligibly small" --
These are too vague. The fact is that noone can guarantee the sub-criticality of the stored spent fuel array in the event of an earthquake registering over 8 on the Richter scale. " Negligibly small likelihood" is an ominous-sounding reassurance in light of the " impossible"1 accidents that have been happening at nuclear plants world-wide. There is too great a seismic risk present at Humboldt Bay to warrant 30 years of high-level waste so close to so many faults.
Pg. 3-12, PP 1: In an earthquake rupture, new rock frachures may increase groundwater velocity, reduce the rate at which radionuclides
<. (6) precipitsto cut, and cauca great:r cnd c:ra rapid fluch into the Bay. This must be analyzed in the DES.
Pg. 3-12, PP3: What is the staff's worst-case release scenario? Why did the staff use the licensee's estimates, instead of independent sources?
PP 4: "the radionuclides were assumed to remain in Humboldt Bay for 1 year." Why this assumption? Where will they "go" after 1 year is up?
Pg. 3-13: "Thus an average individual coneuming finfish and/or shellfish..."
What about the risk to a family which relies mostly on this seafood for its sustenance, as do many fisherfolk in the Bay region?
" Average consumption" is based on, general population -- but consumption in a-fishing economy, such as Humboldt Bay, would be obviously many degrees higher. This impact is not adequately addres-sed inithe DES.
Pg. 4-1, PP 3: "Decon .is not feasible. . ." -- This is weak analysis: Morris, Ill. is not even given passing consideration. The example of Elk River is discounted.
"DECON would result in greater occupational radiation expos-ures... and more radioactive waste than other alternatives."
-- There is no evidence presented in )he DES to substantiate this conclusion.
PP 5: "SAFESTOR ... occupational radiation exposures would be the lowest." -- Again, there is no evidence presented in support.
In Japan, nuclear utilities are advised to wait no longer than 10 years ofter closure to dismantle their plants. Humboldt Bay Plant has been closed now for rm. years. It was built in the wrong place, using technology from the 1950's, when little was known about the true nature of nuclear safety,-
er about seismic voL&tility. Unfortunately,,this DES has no chapter entitled
" Common Sense" .
Common sense dictates that it's foolish to leave highly radioactive materials sitting on three earthquake faults in leaky pools right next to the Pacific Ocean! The risk over thirty years is too great..
This DES appears to have been written with a pre-conceived goal in mind:
to bail PG&E and the NRC out of the mistakes they have been compounding for years. It won' t wash. It is incomplete, vague, and in its generic evasive-n:ss of critical seismic issues ,a travesty. This is not an acceptable Cnvironmental statement. Its conclusions appear to be only its premises, I
(7) I cnd should be rejected or completely reassessed.
Obviously, there is no " safe" way out of the decommissioning dileima.
At best, we have a choice of bad choices. But the choice propsed in this I document is possibly the worst of all. Back to the drawing boards, and let's be honest this time!
Sincerely, for t e Acorn Alliance for Safe Energy, C$# M J red Rossman Box 786 Redway, CA 95560
.