ML19206A809
| ML19206A809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1969 |
| From: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904210482 | |
| Download: ML19206A809 (8) | |
Text
--
,- s
_)
n October 6, 1969
SUMMARY
STATEMENT BY THE i
DIVISION OF IEAJEOR LICENSING l
^
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-320 t
i GF: C53 790421o V82
]
'!~
O
]
l On April 29, 1968, the Jersey Central Power & Light Company applied l
to the Atomic 2nergy Commission for a construction permit to construct a second nuclear reactor facility at its Oyster Creek site in Ocean County, New Jersey. Subsequently, Amendments No. 6 and No. 9, submitted on March 10, 1969 and May 7,1969, respectively, changed the location of the nuclear reactor facility to the Three Mile Island site in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and indicated a co-owner, Metropolitan Edison Company, would have the responsibility to design, construct, and operate the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2.
Notice of the change I
of site and ownership was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 1969, 34 FR 6451.
t.
During the period between the April 1968 filing date and this hearing, we have conducted our technical evaluation of this proposed facility using standards ad criteria developed by the Comnission.
In the course of our evaluatic. we have held a number of meetings with the applicants and their j
principal contractors, the Babcock and Wilcox Company and Burns and Roe, Incorporated, to discuse various safety-related aspects of the plant design. As a result of requests for specific information, the applicants submitted 10 amendments to the application.
In addition, we have requested and have received advice from consultants on site-related subjects and plant structural design. The Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has also reviewed this application.
62 %4 m
(
')
)
.. When filed with the Commission, the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 applicatica was assigned to Reactor Project Branch i
No. 2, one of the five branches within the Reactor Projects group. The I
j Reactor Projects group of the Division of Reactor Licensing has the responsibility for the safety review, analysis, and evaluation of appli-i t
i cations for provisional construction permits and provisional operating 4
licenses.
In addition to the technical evaluation within the Projects group, specialized aspects of the review were undertaken by personnel of the Reactor Technology group of the Divisio:. of Reactor Licensing.
In this regard, the site characteristics and environmental considerations, including d.e evaluation of the consequences of postulated accident situations, were reviewed by members of the Environmental and Radiation Safety Technology Branch. Personnel from this branch coordinated the activities of our I
consultants in the Air Resources Environmental Laboratory, Environmental Science Services Administration (Weather Bureau) on site meteorology; the U. S. Geological Survey on geological and hydrological considerations; the U. S. Coast & Geodetic Survey on seismology; Nathan M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services on soil mechanics; and the Fish and Uildlife Service on environmental monitoring. The reports of these agencies are included as appendices to our Safety Evaluation.
The Containment and Component Technology Branch review of the plant included consideration of the adequacy of the containment structure and (5k2 b'kbb5 i
i
b x.
, the design of Class I structures and cor.ponents for seismic and accident loadings and coordinated the work for nur scissic design consultant, Nathan M. Nuwmatk Consulting Engineering Services.
The instrumentation, control and electrical systems of the plant l
vere reviewed by members of the Instrumentation and Power Technology Branch.
In our review, design features of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 were frequently compared with similar features of other reactor facilities including Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1, the Oconee Nuclear Station, Rancho Seco Nuclear Station, Crystal kiver Nuclear Station, and the Russellville Nuclear Station which have been previously reviewed and approved by the Commission.
The Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 is being designed and will be const.c-ted to be safe under all operating conditions including startup, power operatioc, power load changes, shutdown, and refueling.
In the unlikely event of various postulated accidents, including loss of normal reactor coolant, engineered safety features will previde core protection, and confine radioactivity released from damaged fuel to the containment building.
We have considered the radiological effects on the e
l environment and conclude that the offsite radiation levels resulting from normal plant operation, as well as from postulated accidentr,,
are within established regulations or site criteria guidelines.
As a consequence of our review, several design changes or additional requirements were made which have safety implications. These matters include the following:
PGU
,.c
(> 4
,=
i l-.'
\\.)
j l.
1.
Additional flood level protection to thac :onsidered for Unit #1 will be provided to permit safe shutdown of the plants in the event of the occurrence of the Probable Maximum Flood.
2.
Volumetric inspection for the primary coolant pumps fly-wheels during fabrication will be included in the inspection program.
3.
A pressure proof test program was developed to provide means for surveillance of the integrity of the contain-ment building throughout the lifetime of the plant.
These items are discussed in more detail in our Safety Evaluation. Any problems which these features may have presented have been resolved to f
our satisfaction for this construction permit review.
In addition, in our review we examined certain safety matters common to pressurized water reactors in general which warranted further evalua-
~
tion.
In this category are:
1.
The effect of loss-of-coolant blowdown forces on the core and other primary system components.
2.
Development of further evidence of the behavior of fuel rods during the postulated loss-of-coolant accidents.
3.
The effects of operation of the control rods on xenon redistribution and core stability.
4.
Further evidence of the iodine removal characteristics of the chemical cdditive spray and charcoal filters.
C'".C.' (% C.,))
m
.s b
'..)
l, '
5.
The effect of che=ical reaction and coolant radiolysis on the rate of hydrogen production within the containment building following a loss-of-coolant accident.
We believe that each of these issues will be resolved prior to the opera-ting license stage of review.
i The design of the major systems and components of the proposed plant, including the emergency cooling systems and containment structure, which bear significantly on the acceptability of the plant under the site criteria guidelines identified in 10 CFR Part 100, has been analyzed and evaluated by the applicants and the staff at an ultimate core thermal power level of 2772 Mw.
The thermal and hydraulic characteristics of the reactor cores were t
analyzed and evaluated at a core thermal power level of 2452 Mw.
The applicants believe that 2772 Mwt can be safely achieved at Unit No. 2 after suitable operating experience at 2452 Mwt, the operating limit established under the present license procedure. However, befere opera-tion at any core power level above 2452 Mwt will be authorized, the Commission will evaluate ti.c proposed power operation to as. are that the core can be operated safely at the higher power level.
All applications for authority to construct nucicar power plants, including the proposed Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Cait No. 2, are reviewed by the Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
The ACRS conducts an independent review of the safety of the proposed facility and advises the Atomic Energy Commission on the results of its review.
<a, UYs
-r, i
o 3
1 The ACRS, in its letter of July 17, 1969, to the Chairman regarding the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 application, made several comments and recommendations with respect to various technical a
I features of the proposed reactor. We have considered each of these and will be guided by all of them in our continuing review of the Three Mile j
Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2.
The ACRS letter concludes:
"The Advisory Co=mittee on Reactor Safeguards believes that the items mentioned can be resolved during con-struction, and that, if due consideration is given to the foregoing, Unit 2 proposed for the Three Mile Island site can be ccastructed with reasonable assurance that it can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public."
l This su= mary of the scope of the Commission's safety review of this project indicates the consideration which has been given by the regulatory i
t staff and the-Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to those design features of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 which are inportant to safety. As discussed in our Safety Evaluat. ;n, we have concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 can be built and operated as proposed with-out undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The construction permit sought for this facility is the first step in the Conmission's regulatory process which will continue throughout the lifetime of the station.
In order to determine that all of the Commission's safety requirements have been satisfied, and prior to issuing a provisional operating license for this unit, the final design and safety analysis e111 be thoroughly evaluated by the regulatory staff of the a,
6a
_7_
Division of Reactor Licensing and the Advisory Coc:mittee on Reactor Safeguards in a manner similar to the review process at this, the con-struction permit stage. The plant would then be operated only in l
accordance with the Commission's regulations throughout the plant lifetime, i
i l,
i rwn
.. (' U
~]'
i