ML20246M153
| ML20246M153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1989 |
| From: | Bell M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246M119 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909070109 | |
| Download: ML20246M153 (9) | |
Text
. - - - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ps ,
7a 4 . , - w
-cs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~
NUCLEAR REGULATOP3 COMMISSION-In the matter of-PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-133 Humboldt Bay Power Plant 1 l: Unit No.'3 EXEMPTION I.
Pacific Gas'and Electric Company (the licensee) is the holder of' Facility License No. DPR-7, which authorizes possession but not operation of Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 (Humboldt Bay Unit 3). The license provides, among other things, that it is subject to ali rules, regulations, and orders
~
of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Commission) now or hereafter. in ,
effect. The facility consists of a p rmanently shut down boiling water reactor and stored spent fuel located at the licensee's site in Humboldt County, California.
II.
Section 50.54(w) of the Comission's regulations requires that each comercial power reactor licensee shall, by June 29, 1982, take reasonable steps to obtain on-site property damage insurance available at reasonable costs and on reasonable terms from private sources or to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Comission that it possesses an equivalent amount of protection covering the facility, provided, among other things, that "this 8909070109 890822 PDR ADOCK 05000133 a' P PDC
2
'- ~
insurance must have a minimum coverage limit for the reactor station site of either $1.06 billion or whatever amount of insurance is generally available from private sources, whichever is less."
On May 28, 1982, the licensee filed a previous Request for Exemption from 10.CFR 50.54(w) to reduce the required minimum amount of primary property damage insurance to $100,000,000. In support of this request, the licensee indicated that Humboldt Bay Unit 3 had been shut down since July 1976 and was in cold shutdown condition. The licensee indicated that studies conducted by it and the NRC stcff concluded that the unit presented no' danger to the health and safety of the public. Further, the licensee was then maintaining all-risk property damage insurance for Humboldt Bay Unit 3 in the amount of approximately
$100,000,000. The licensee submitted that any additional insurance beyond that currently carried should not be required. In addition, the licensee stated that the annual premium for additional insurance would be an unnecessary burden on its ratepayers. That exemption request was granted on November 3, 1982 (54FR3168).
In its June 9,1989 request the licensee asks for a furthe,r reduction in the required minimum property damage insurance from $100,000,000 to $63,160,000.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a) the Commission may grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations which are authorized by law, will not i
L
- y ..
m .e
.a,, --'i ,a ,
L ., , 4 ~;.
}_; .
e, g
. Lendanger[ life.or. property or- the common defense and security, and are otherwise in:the.public interest..
? III.
K: - Huinboldt' Bay Unit 3. has been shut down since July 2, .1976. In 1983, the l licensee &cided to decommis' sion' Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and subsequently-submitted a proposed Decommissioning Plan, proposed Technical Specifications (TS) and an Environmental Report. Thelicenseeproposed(1)toamendLicense l
lio. QPR-7 to possess-but-not-operate status; (2).10. delete certain license conditions related to' seismic modifications required before the NRC would
- authorize a return to power operation; (3) to revise the T5 to reflect the i ' possess-but-not-operate status; (4) to decommission Humboldt Bay Unit 3 in accordance with the plan included with the subatttah and (5) to extend License No. DPR-7 for 15. additional years, to Noreaber 9, 2015, to be consistent with the Decommissioning Plan.
E On July 16 -1985 License No. DPR-7 was amended to possess-but-not-operate status. On July 19, 1988 License No. DPR-7 was amended to approve the Decommissioning Plan and the balance of items 3 r.hrough 5 above.
1 The licensee notes that all fuel has now been removed from the reactor 1
.(394 assemblies), all fuel is now stcred in the on-site spent fuel pool, along .
i i
l
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ l
L .
f with 54 in-core fission chambers, and the unit is now functioning as a spent fuel storage facility. Plant operations are now limited to survefilance and i
monitoring activities, and continued treatment and purification of spent fuel pool water and water entering the plant as ground water in-leakage. The licensee also notes that the staff's previous evaluation of the spent fuel pool concluded that the probability of any credible means of achieving nuclear criticality was negligibly small.
The licensee explains that the requested insurance minimum of $63,160,000 is the combined book value of the nuclear unit (Humboldt Bay Unit 3, ,
$30,294,000) and the two on-site fossil fuel units ($52,966,000). Ibe licensee indicates that the difference in cost between insuring for $100,000,000 and the proposed $63,160,000 is about $94,000 per year, and that the additional cost is against the public interest as it is a needless expense.
'4 The NRC staff agrees with the licensee that Humboldt Bay Unit 3 is functioning as a spent fuel storage facility, that the risk of criticality is negligibly small, and that the proposed minimum amount of property damage insurance is adequate. A previous Commission-sponsored review and analysis of the costs of clean-up and decontamination et reference non-reactor facilities following postulated accidents comparable to those for which Humboldt Bay Unit 3 is conceivably vulnerable (e.g., fire, u plosion) concluded that recovery costs would be substantially less than the proposed insurance minimum (see NUREG/CR-3293). For example, costs of recovery from credible accidents at a l
l
___-- - 1
l/
(
. , - ~. ,
i mixed oxide plant and a uranium fuel fabrication plant are estimated to be no L
more than $4.6 million and $2.2 mfilion, respectively, in 1981 dollars.
Potential accident recovery costs at these facilities would be higher than at Humboldt Bay Unit 3. This is because the radioactive material is more dispersive and can lead to more widespread contamination than the aged spent feel elements maintained under water in the spent fuel pool at Humboldt Bay Unit 3. The staff therefore concludes that the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(w) will still be achieved with a minimum property damage l insurance amount of $63,,160,000.
1 Based on the feregoirog, and in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a) the staff concludes that the exeinption fro'm the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) as I discussed above, is authorized by law, will not endar.ger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest.
Furthermore, full compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(w) is not necessary to achieve l
the underlying purpose of the rule. Thus, special circumstances exist as describedin650.12(a)(2)(ii)whichtheCummissionhasdeterminedare sufficient to warrant the exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants Pecific Gas and Electric Company the following exemption:
The licensee is exempt, until further Order of the Commission, from the requirement to carry primary property damage insurance coverage
p .
L . .; , -
for Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 in the full amount called for by 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1),'provided that the licensee maintains such primary property damage insurance in an amount not less than $63,160,000.
IV.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission previously determined that the
. granting of. this Exemption would have no significant impact on the environment (64FR34266).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 )< h w John T. Greeves, Deputy Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of August, 1989 i
j i
e n J'
[7590-01]
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT REGARDING AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50.54(w)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT, UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-133 The U.S. Nucitar Regulatory Consnission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) to Pacific
~
Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), for Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3, located in Humboldt County, California.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action: By application dated June 9,1989, Pacific Gas and Electric Company requasted an exemption. The exemption will rectuce the current requirement for minimum primary property damage insurance for the permanently shut down Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3, from $100,000,000 to
$63,160,000.
The Need for the Proposed Action: The licensee is requesting an exemption from the current requirement for primary property damage insurance, in order to reduce the amount of insurance coverage required, and the associated premium payments.
Humboldt Bay Unit 3 was shut down on July 2,1976 and all spent fuel was subsequently transferred to the spent fuel pool. The operating itcense was modified to possess-but-not-operate status on July 16, 1985. On July 19, 1988
^
[7590-01) the NRC approved a decommissioning plan that required safe storage of spent fuel on-site until a Federal repository was available to receive it.
On November 3, 1982, the Commission granted, at the request of the licensee, a previous exemption to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) provided a minimum of $100,000,000 of primary property demage insurance was maintained. The licensee now asks for a further reduction of the minimum property damage insurance coverage to $63,160,000 ano states that the cost of maintaining the insurance will be reduced by about $94.000 per year. The licensee believes the reduced minimum coverage amount to be adequate to cover costs of on-site cleanup following accidt As because the reactor may not be operated and all fuel is stored on-site such that a nuclur criticality accident is not credible.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action: The proposed action is administrative only and will have no environmental impact since an adequate amount of insurance is being retained to cover on-site recovery from accidents.
Alternative Use of Resources: This action does not involve the use of resources.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff is reviewing the licensee's request. No other agencies er persons were consulted.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
\ . .; v * .
.m
[759001]
l:
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's application. dated June 9,1989 which is available in the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the Eureka-Humboldt County Library, 421 I Street, Eureka, California.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this lith day of August,1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- k' U f.
Michael J. Bell, Chief Rege.latory Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office Of Nuclear material Safety and Safeguards
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _