ML19206A968
| ML19206A968 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1969 |
| From: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19206A958 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904210666 | |
| Download: ML19206A968 (11) | |
Text
___.._ _ _.
n
' ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY CC 'MISS1CN In the Matter of
)
)
JERSEY CENTRAL PCWER AND
)
LIGHT COMPKW
)
)
t AND
)
Docket No. 50-320
~~
1 4
i METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station Unit 2)
)
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT t.ND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN BY THE RECULATCR'? STAFF IN THE FORM OF A PROPOSED INITIAL DECISICN Preliminarv Statercat 1.
This proceeding involves the application of the Jersey Central Power cad Light Cc=peny and the Metropolitan Edison Company
(" applicants"), dated April 22, 1968, and ten subsequent amend =cnts (hereinafter collectively referred to as the " application"), properly filed under section 104 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), for a provisional construction permit to construct a pressuriced water reactor, designed to operate initially at 2,452 megawatts (thermal), to be located at the applicants ' site on Three Mile Island on the Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township of Dauphin County, ?cnnsylvania, approximately ten miles southeast of 1/
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
L 1/ The appl cction dated April 22, 19cS, uas submitted by Jersey Central Fouer & Light Company for cuthori:ction of a nuclear recctor at its Oyster Creek site i. Occcn County, New Jersey. Metropolitan Edison Company joined as : co-applicant with the submittal of Amend-ment No. 6 to the applicction which designated a new location for the reactor at Metropolitan Edison Comp ny's Three Mile Island Nuclecr Station in Dauphin County, ?cnnsylvcnia.
7904215(,h6
,n G
A4 e
i.
2.
The application has been reviewed by the regulatory staff
("sta t*) of the Ato=ic Energy Co==ission (" Commission") and the Advisory Commitece on Reactor Safeguards, both of which concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed facility can
}
be constructed and operated at the proposed site without undue risk i
to the health and safety of the public.
(Staff Safety Evaluation of Septe=ber 5, 1969 '(SE), Tr. 133, pp. 72-74, 76, 79-81) 3.
In accordance with the requirements of thg Act and a Notice 2/
~
of Hearing published August 27, 1969, 34 F.R. 13708, a public hearing was held before this atomic safety and licensing board (" board") in Middletown, Pennsylvania, on October 6, 1969, to consider whether a 2
provisional construction permit should be issued to the applicants.
The parties to the proceeding vere the applicants and the staff. The
~
j proceeding was not a " contested proceeding" within the meaning of 10 CFR S 2.4(n) of the Co==ission's 'taules of Practice."
4.
iursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.715 of the Co==ission's " Rules of Practice," limited appearances were made during the hearing by a representative of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of 3/
i Health (Tr. 73-74 & 180-182) and by one other person.
i 1
2/ Pursuant thereto a prehearing conference was held on September 19, 1969, in Uashington, D. C.
3/ See parc. 14 infrn.
63' F65 b
e
"=
r
,)
t
.3 1
Findin2s of Fact 5.
The applicants are corporations, all of whose cc:=on stock is owned by Cencral Public Utilitics, Inc. (CPU), a public utility 4
holding company.
They are soundly financed and have significant resources at the42 co==and.
The applicants plan to finance the cost i
of construction of the proposed facility as an integral part of their total constructior program, namely in the ordinary course of business through funds derived from operations, through sale of securitics, and through capital contributtons from CPU.
(Testimony of John S. Eurchell and Ray =ond E. Werts, Tr.115; Testi=6ny of Charles A. Lovejoy and Suppic=ent thereto, Tr. 116) 2 6.
The application contains a description of the site and the 2
basis for its suitability, a detailed description of the pro,osed facility, including those reactor systems and feature's which are
'I essential to safety, an analysis of the safety features provided for
.! ~
in the facility design, and on evaluation of various pt. tulated acci-dent's and hazards involved in the operation.f such a facility and the engineered safei, features provided :.o limit their ef fect. Additional testimony and docu=entary evidence relative to these matters are included in the evidentiary record. Also included in the application is evidence i
of the technical cualifications of the applicants, including those of their contractors, to design and construct the facility.
The staff b
G'd166
xL}
w.
safety evaluation sets forth the conaidarction given to the important t
safetylleatures of the proposed facility and the significance assigned to those systems and features important to the prevention or mitigation of accidents and to the health and safety of the public.
(SE, Tr. 133) i 7.
Metropolitan Edison Ccepany is responsibic for engineering,
' design, cont,truction, operation and maintenance of Three Mile Island Nuclear Str. tion Unit 2.
Metropolitan Edison Co=pany has 85 years' i
experience in the design, construction, and operation of electric generatir.g stations, and is presently constructing Three Mile Island Muclear Station Unit No. 1.
The GPU Nuc1 car Power Activities Group has been org'anized to mobilize the capabilitics and nucicar experience of the GPU system, which includes the operating power reactors at 2
Saxton and Oyster Crack, and will provide t,echnical assistance and,
guidance to the Three Mile Island Project Director.
The ruclear I
' steam supply system is being designed and fabricated by the Sabcock and Wilcox Company.
Burns and Roe, Inc., has been engaged as the project architect-cugineer except in the areas of cool'.g tower design and inter-faces between Unit 1 and Unit 2 for which Gilbert Associates, Inc., has been engaged.
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., is the con-struction manager foi both Unit 1 and Unit 2.
The record supporta the staff's conclusion that "the applicants are technically cualified to design and build the Three Mile Island Suclcar Station Unit 2."
.m O
M
(}
j
. 4 e
(Applicants' Su==ory Description of Application for Reactor Con-struction Permit cnd Operating License, September 3, 1959 (SA),
Tr. 124, pp. 31-35 ; SE, Tr. 133, pp. 62-64; Tr. 81-82) 8.
The plcat aire is located adjacent to Unit No. 1 on Three Mile Ialana on the Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township of
}i Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
The exclusion distance for the Three Mile Island site is 2,000 feet.
Based upon the combined population of Middletown-Steelton co==unitics (22,450) with their nearest boundary at 2.2 miles, the applicants hcvc proposed a low population zone. radius of two.=iles.
The plant design will take into account local hydrological conditions, ecrthquakes, tornados, cnd aircreft impacts. The cpplicant has indicated that he will provide protection against the Frobable Mcximu= Flood (PMF) as calculated by the Corps of Engineers. A comprehensive pre-operational environ =cntal conitorin;;
progrc= has been in progress at :his site for some time in connection a
i with the Three Mile Island Unit 1.
In this case the applicant will continue to cooperate with interested government agencie. concern'ing these radiological surveys in accordance with the reco=cadations of 4,)
the Fish and L'ildlife Service.
(RA Tr. 124, pp. 3-10; Supplement to 4
0 4j As a matter of general interect, the record of the proceeding con-tains infor=ction fro = the applicant and staff which indicates thct the Susquehanne River basin cc vall cs the Chcocpecke Bay can accom-modate the installation of the proposed plant cad an addition:1 num-ber of other such plants without ccusing concentrctions of radiologicci
, effluent: to exceed more than a small fraction of the values set forth in 10 CF2 Part 20.
(SA, Tr. 124, pp. 5-7; SSA, Tr. 124, pp. 3-7; Tr.
139-148, 151-153, 184, & 190-194)
GP,768
.i
,)
~
(
~.
Sur. mary Description for Reactor Construction Permit and Operating i
License:.(SSA), Tr. 124, pp. 3-5 & 8-9 ; S2, Tr. 133, pp. 4-8; Tr.
c 137-138)
I 9.
The design of the plant's =ajor systc=3 and components which bear significantly on the acceptability of the facility at the pro-posed site under the site criteria guidelines identified in 10 C7R Part 100 of the Commission's regulations have been analyzed and evaluated by the applicants and the staff at a core power level of 2,772 cegawatts (thermal) the ultimate reactor power level expected for the facility.
(SA,Tr. 124, p. 2 ; SE, Tr. 133, pp. 1-2)
The proposed facility incorporates numerous systems, com-10.
'ponents and features for the protection of plant personnel and the t
public and is similsr in design to plants incorporating pressurized 4
water reactors which have been previously approved for construction 2
1
.by the Co==ission.
(SA, Tr. 124, pp. 2 & 16-17 ; S2, Tr. 133, pp. 2
& 46 ; Tr. 81) An important safe y feature is the contai=nent system which will completely enclose the reactor and major components of the primary coolant system. The contaicnent system consists of a rein-forced prestressed concrete structure with a vapor tight steel liner.
The prestressed tendons will be grouted to provide protection against corrosion. The containment structure is designed to acco==odate, Gr.'n?G9
.T
)
I i
'f 7-without loss of integrity, functional loads resulting from a loss-of-coolant accident occurring simul':ncously with the maximum i
hypothetical earthquake and normal outrating loads.
(SA, Tr. 124, j
pp. 14-15 ; SSA, Tr. 124, pp. 11-14 ; SE, Tr. 133, pp. 31-38; Tr. 149-1 151)
I 11.
The proposed facility hcs two separable cooling systems l
which assure adequate core cooling and pressure reduction within the contain= cat structure even if a loss-of-coolcnt accident should occur.
For i==cdiata short-term cooling, an ccergency core cooling system will inject cool borcted water into cach of the primary coolant loops and j
directly into the reactor vessel,.thereby lLniting the fuel pin clad temperatures and fission product raicese into the containment.
For i
cooling containment cir to reduce the containment vess'el internal pressure in the event of an accident, there are tuo i'ndependent spray I
systems which deliver cool borated water into the containment atmosphere.
These systems will provide borated water containing dissolved sodiu=
thiosulphete and sodium hydroxide to rc=ove iodine in the event of en accident.
(SA, Tr. 124, pp. 10-24; SSA. Tr. 124, pp. 1-2; SE, Tr. 133, pp. 10-20 & 45-52; Tr. 135-136) 12.
The applicants and the staff recognice that in order to develop the final design of the facility further information end data vill be needed. Such additional information cnd data will be developed by i
n s.
e G3'E70' o
D 3
-+~e e-ommm mm L) 8-research and development projects in the course of the final design work for the plant.
In addition, so=c of the basic w.,ri in progress is expectad to provide co=c confir=ation that the proposed designs are conservative. The =cjor areas of research and development include the xenon oscillations, core thermal and hydraulic tests, fuel rod clad failure, high burnup fuel tests, internal vent valves, control rod drive test, oncc-through steam generator, in-core neutron detector test, blowdoun forces on reactor internals, chc=ical spray system, and effects of radiolysis. The objectives of these prograas have been defined, and a schedule for the furnishing of infor=ation prior to completion of construction of the proposed facility has been established.
(SA, Tr. 124, pp. 26-31, 36-37 ; SSA, Tr. 124, pp. 1-2; 2
SS, Tr. 133, pp. 50-52, 54-55, 57-59, 60-61 & 72-74) 13.
Metropolitan Edison Company has established a co=prehensive
~
cuality assurance progres which is consistent uith the intent of, and which has been evaluated by the staff in accordance with, the AEC's
" Quality Assurance Criteria for Nucicar Power Plants" which was published in the April 17, 1969, Federal 2c2ister as a proposed Appendix 3 to 10 CF2 Part 50.
Metropolitan Edison Company has established a quality assurance crganization to assure that the facility will be fabricated and constructed in accordance uith appli-cable codes and. specifications.
The G?U Manager of Quality Assurance E3 771 3
y
.1
4 i )
~ )
_9_
and MP2 Associates, Inc., will assist Metropolitan Edison Company in t
provid143 overall direction, guidance and surveillance over the quality assurance programs of reactor supplier, the architect-engineer, the construction =anager, and their subcontractors.
(SA, Tr. 124, pp. 25-i 26 ; SSA, Tr. 124, pp. 7-8; SS, Tr. 133, pp. 65-69) 14.
The facility uill be located 2-1/2 miles from the Olmstead State Airport. Although the probability of an aircraf t incident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station is extrc=cly rc=ote, the vital i
structures of the station will be designed to withstand a significant range of aircraft strike loadings, including such secondary effects as missiles, fire, pressure and ec=perature. An area resident in a limited
(
appearance quescl'ned the capability of the cont ainment building and other critical components to ' withstand an i;= pact of a ' larger than the s
design basi.9 aircraft (200,000 lbs.).
The evidence pr,esented by the parties, in addition to that conccrring the very low possibility impact, concludes that there is little likelihood that any aircraft impact on the facility could cause the release of radioactivity.
This is due to the conservativo design of the contain=cnt to withstand impact and additional protection provided to the primary syste= by shield walls inside the containment.
In addition, under adverse weather conditions involving poor visibility, landings by all large aircraft using Olmstead would be under instrumant flight reguistions and would not be permitted b
m
~.
- )
{
(
- to.
under these conditions to fly over rhe site.
(SA, Tr. 124, pp. 4, et 7-9 ; S24 Tr. 133, pp. 8, 42-43 ; Tr. 70-72, 74-7 5, 102-103, 105-109, 157-180, IS2, 201-204)
- 15. The activitica to be conducted under the provicional construction permit will ba within the jurisdiction of the United States, and all of the directors and principal officers of the applicants are United States citizens. The applicants are not owned, controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation or a foreign goverre. ant.
The activitics to be conducted do not involve may restricted data, but the cpplicants hcve agreed to safeguard any such data which might becoma involved in cccordance with 10 C:i"it 5 50.33(j). Special nuclcar material for use as ' fuel in the proposed f acility will be subject to Cc=:nission regulations cnd vill be f
obtained from sources of supply, so that there will be no diversion of such material.
(SA, Tr.124, pp. 37-38; SE, Tr. 123, pp. 74-75)
~
16.
The application and the proceeding thereon comply uith the requirc=ents of the Act and the Commission's regulations.
There are no unresolved safety questions portinent to the issuance of the pro-visional construction permit.
Conclusions i
17.
Upon consideration of the entire record in this proceeding and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lau set forth f)
OW
~
U L.
N(-
~ - -
,8 e
Y
.I n
t t
t }
above, this board concludes that the application and the record of the procer: ding contain sufficient infor:stion, and the reviaw of the appli-cation by the staff has been adequate to support (1) the findings pro-i j
posed to be cado by the Director of Regulation, and (2) the issuance of the provisional construction permit as proposed by the Director of i
Regulation, as set forth in tha Notice of Hearing in this proceeding.
Crder i
18.
Pursuant to the Act and the Commission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Regulation issue a provisional con:truction permit to the Jersey Ccatral Pover and Light Company and the 14ctropolitan Edison Co=pany substantially in the form set forth in Appendix "A"
to the notice of Hearing in this proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORESPID, in i
accordance with 10 CFR 55 2.760, 2.752 and 2.764 of the Cen=ission':
" Rules of Practice," that this Initial Decision shall be effcetive in=ediately and shall constitute the final action of the Cc==ission forty-five (45) days after the date of issuance, subject to review th'ereof a-! further decision of the Commission upon its own cotion or upon exceptions filed pursuant to the cited rules.
ATOMIC SAF2TY ASD LICENSIMG 30ARD J. D. Scad, Chairman Clarke Uilli =s Dated at
!.bcl Uclaan day of
, 1969.
this
[,? 9 - r rdf u,r,
T9
.]