ML19220B666

Initial Decision Ordering Issuance of Provisional Cp. Decision Will Constitute Final Action After 40 Days

ML19220B666
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	10/31/1969
From:	Bond J, Williams C, Wolman A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUDOCS 7904270191
Download: ML19220B666 (10)

Text

~

~

r-p d

b

?

g[(

<3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCfg 21969

~-4 ATQ4IC ENERGY CG4 MISSION g,4 r..,,..b?!

d Qi s

'O'$

Ir. the matter of the application by )

/

oy 4

I N

JERSEY CENTRAL PO'ER & LIGHT COMPM3Y )

)

DOCKET No. 50-320 and I

MEIROPOLITAN EDISON CQ4PMiY

)

)

For a Provisional Construction Pemit)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,

)

Unit 2) Middletown, Pennsylvania

)

Appearances Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

and Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.

Appearing on behalf of the Applicants 8

Jersey Central Power & Light Cecrpany and Metropolitan Edison Ccx:rpany i

I James P. Murray, Jr., Esq.

Heil J. Nevnan, Esq.

and Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Appering on behalf of the U. S. Atoctic Energy Cccmission Regulatory Staff INITIAL EECISION j

Pre 14mirnt y Statement 1.

This proceeding involves the application of Jersey Central Power & Light Ccx:pany and Metropolitan Edison Cecipany (Applicants) for a provisional construc+ ion pemit to construct a pressurized water reactor designed for initial operation at core power levels q904og019\\

~

81-114 5

mr

. s.3.

s.> -

n i

L

()

]

up to 2452 megawatts (themal). 'Ihe facility, designated as Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2, (hereinafter, Unit 2) vill be l

located en the site at Three Mile Island adjacent to Unit 1, a nuclear electric genersting plant which is now under construction by Metropolitan Edison Ccupany. The island site in the Susquehanna River is in Dauphin Countyabmt 20 miles southeast of Harrisburg, I

Pennsylvania. The application has been reviewed by the Regulatory Staff (Staff) of the Atcnic Energy Ca:: mission (Ccmsission) and the Advisory Ccc:mittee on Reacter Safe 5uards (ACES), both of which con-cluded that there is reasonable assurance that the described facility I

can be constructed and operated at the proposed site without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

• t l

2.

In accordance with the requirements of the Atcnic Energy Act and the Ccr:: mission's regulations, and pursuant to the Notice of Hearing published in the Federal Register on August 27, 1969, at 34 FR 13708, a public hearing was held before this Atcnic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) on October 6,1969, in Middletown,

}

Fennsylvania, to consider whether a provisional construction pemit should be issued to the Applicants. The parties to the proceeding were the Applicants and the Staff. No petitions for leave to intervene were filed. Pursuant to Section 2 715(a) of the Cocmission's Rules of Practice, Dr. Arthur Socciov, an area resident i

who attended throughcut the hearin6, presented a limited appearance state =ent expressing concern relating to protection of the facility frcn aircraft using the nesrby Olmsted State Airport. Mr. Thcnas M.81-115 v-

M1

---.. ~

O O

' Gerusky, representing the Pennsylvania Department of Health, stated that mutually satisfactory programs relating to radiological health and enerbency procedures have been established in cooperation with the Applicants and the U. S. Public Health Service. Subsequent to the hearing proposed findings and conclusions were filed by the Applicants and the Staff.

3. This is not a contested preceeding as defined in Section 2.4(n) of the Ccc:::zission's Rules of Practice. Accordin6 y, the 1

Board is instructed by the Rules and in_ the Notice of Hearing to consider the issues of whether the application and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient infon::ation, and the review by the Staff has been adequate, to support the findin6s proposed to s

be made and the previsional construction permit proposed to be i

issued by the Director of Re6ulation. The findings and the pemit proposed by the Director of Regulation were published in and with the Notice of Hearing. The post-hearing pleadings of the parties propose affire.ative conclusions upon the issues; they are supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record, i

Findings of Fact 4.

Jersey Central Power & Light Coc:pany and Metropolitan Edison Company vill share the financing and ownership of Unit 2 l

in the ratios of 25 percent and 75 percent, respectively. Each of the Applicants is an operating utility enga5ed in the generation, transmission and sale of electric power. The Applicants are two 61-11G 3

. _..... _... r d-l O

O k.

of fear wholly-owned subsidiaries of General Public Utilities Corporation (GPU), a Pennsylvania corporation registered under the Public Utility Holding Ccmpany Act of 193 5 Each of the Applicants is financially sound and plans to fin &nce its share of the costs of construction of the proposed facility as part of I

its overall construction program. Funds to meet construction i

requirements vill be provided by internal sources and capital i

contrJbutions frcn GPU and by the sale of debt securities in such l

a manner as to maintain a sound and conservative capital structure.

5 Metropolitan Edison Ccupany is responsible for engineerin6, design, construction, operation and maintenance of Unit 2.

8 ~

Metropolitan Edison Cccpany has 85 years' experience in the design, construction, and operation of electric generatin6 stations, and is nov constructin6 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1.

I 1

The GPU Nuclear Power Activities Group, with nuclear experience in operating power reactors at Saxton and Oyster Creek, will provide technical assistance and guidance to the Three Mile Island l

Project Director, John G. Miller, who is Vice President and Chief Engineer of Metropolitan Edison Cc=pany, The nuclear steam supply system is being designed and fabricated by the Babcock & hicox Ccepany. E mc and Roe, Inc., has been engaged as the project architect-eng..cer except in the areas of cooling tower design and interfaces between Unit 1 and Unit 2 for which Gilbert Associates, Inc., has been engaged. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.,

is the construction manager. for both Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Applicants 81 117 e

r

.x.

,~...

O (D

5-vill rely also on assistance in design, quality assurance, and structures to be provided by Pickard & Iove Associates, MPR Associates, and Schupack & Associates. The record supports the I

l Staff's conclusion that "the applicants are technically qualified to design and build the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2".

1 6.

The Unit 2 reactor vill operate initially at core powers up to 2452 Mvt and is designed for an expected ultimate capacity This h1 her power has been used as the design basis of 2772 Mvt.

6 for the contain=ent and the engineered safety features, and it has been used by the Staff and the Applicants in the accident i

analyses and in the evaluation of all major structures, sys, ems, I

and coc:ponento which bear significantly on the acceptability of 8

the site. The exclusion distance for the Three Mile Island site is 2,000 feet. Based upon the ccnbined population of the Middletown-Steelton ecc= unities (22,450) with their nearest bound-ary at 2.2 miles, the Applicants have proposed a low population r.one radius of two miles. The plant design vill take into account local hydrological conditions, earthquakes, tornados, and possible aircraft i= pacts. The Applicants vill provide protection against I

l the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) as calculated by the Corps of Engineers.

7 A coc:prehensive pre-operational environmental sonitorir4 program has been in pregress at this site for scme time in connection with the Three Mile Island Unit 1.

The Applicants vill continue to cooperate with interested government agencies concerning 81 118 T,

L._..

.. _ w--

L 2

~

, l radiological surveys and in accordance with recccmendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service. This record includes evidence frca the Applicants and Staff which indicates that the Susquehannn River i

basin as well as the Chesapeake Bay can accommodate the installation of the proposed plant and an additional number of other such plants without causing total or cu=ulative concentrations of radiological effluents to exceed more than a s=all fraction of the values set i

forth in 10 CFR Part 20.

8.

The proposed facility incorporates numerous systems, com-ponents' and features for the protection of plant personnel and the i

i l

public and is similar in design to plants incorporating pressurized vater reactors which have been previously approved for constructicn An important safety feature is the containment by the Co= mission.

system which will ecnpletely enclcse the reactor and major ccm-The contain=ent system con-ponents of the primary coolant system.

sists of a reinforced prestressed concrete structure with a vepor tight steel liner. The prestressed tendons vill be grouted to pro-i vide protection against corrosion. The containment structure is designed to acccmmodate, without loss of integrity, functional loads resulting frcm a loss-of-coolant accident occurring simultaneously with the maximum hypothetical earthquake and nomal operating loads.

9 The proposed facility has two separable cooling systems which assure adequate core cooling and pressure reduction within culd the containment structure even if a loss-of-coclant accident For i= mediate short-tem cooling, an emergency core cooling occur.81-119 4

m

..,. w..u.a_a 1,

,, u.

O O,

I m

l f.

system vill inject cool borated water into each of the primary coolant loops and directly into the reactor vessel, thereby limit-ing the fuel pin clad tu::peratures and fission product release For cooling contain=ent air to reduce the into the centaimnent.

contaiment vessel internal pressure in the unlikely event of a major accident, there are two independent spray systems which These deliver cool borated water into the contalment atmosphere.

systems vill provide borated water containing dissolved sodium thiosulphate and sodium hydroxide to remove iodine in the event of i

an accident.

The Applicants and the Staff recognize that in order to 10, design of the facility further infomation and develop the fhuti Such additional infomation and data vill be 2

data vill be needed.

i developed by research and development projects in the course of the final desiEn work for the plant. In addition, basic work in progress is expected to provide scxne confimation that the proposed designs The major areas of research and development in-are conservative.

1 clude the renon oscillations, core themal and hydraulic tests, fuel

.i rod clad failure, high burnup fuel tests, internal vent valves, control rod drive test, once-through steem generator, in-core neutron detector test, blowdown forces on reactor internals, chemical spray The objectives of these programs system, and effects of radiolysis.

have been defined, and a schedule for the furnishing of infomation prior to ecmpletion of construction of the proposed facility has i

been established.

8^-120 v..,

_m

a k 11. Applicants have established a ecx:rprehensive quality assur-snee program which is consistent with the intent of, and vnich has been evaluated by the Staff in accordance with, the AEC's " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" which was recently pub-lished as a proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. Applicants '

quality assurance organization, including the GPU Manager of Qvality i

Assurance, vill undertake to assure that the facility vill Le fabri-I cated and const ucted in accordance with applicable codes anii specifi-The quality assurance program encoc: passes overall direction, I

cations.

guidance and surveillance over the quality assurance practies to be i

observed by the reactor supplier, the architect-engineer, the construction manager, and their suocontractors.

l The facility vill be located 2-1/2 miles frcct Olmsted State 8

12.

Airport. Althou6h the probability of an aircraft incident at the Three Mile 7sland Nuclear Station is remote, the vital structures of

~

4 the station vill be designed to withstand a significant range of air-craft strike loadings, including such secondary effects as missiles, fire, pressure and temperature. Dr. Socolow's statement inquired abput the capability of the containment building and other critical l

cccponents to withstand an impact of a larger than the desi6n basis I

aircraft (200,000 lbs.). The responsive evidence presented by the parties, in addition to that-concernin6 the low probability of impact, is persuasive that there is little likelihood that any air-craft impact on the facility could cause the release of radioactivity.

'ihis view rests upon an evaluation of the conservative design of the 81-121 T

U L

0 h-e

~

i :

1 I

containment tci withstand impact, and the value of the additional protection provided to the reactor and the primary cooling system

{

1 by_ shield valls inside the containment. In addition, under adverse weather conditions involving poor visibility, landings by all large aircraft using Olmsted Airport would be under instrument fli ht 6

regulations which then would not permit fli hts over the site.

6 3

13 The activities to be conducted under the provisional construction permit vill be within the jurisdiction of the United States, and all of the directors and principal officers of the i

Applicants are United States citizens. The Applicants are not owned, controlled or dcminated by an alien, a foreign corporation or a forei n government. The activities to be conducted do not 6

I involve any restricted data, but the Applicants have agreed to t

i safeguard any such data which might beccce involved in accordance I

with 10 CFR Part 30 33(J). SPecial nuclear material for use as fuel in the proposed facility vill be subject to Commission regula-tions and will be obtained frca sources of supply such that there vill be no diversion of such material to unauthorized uses.

Conclusions 11+. Upon consideration of the entire record in this proceeding j

and the findings of fact and statements set forth above, the Board s

i concludes that the application and the record of the proceeding con-tain sufficient information, and the review of the application by the Staff has been adequate to support the findings proposed to be made by the Director of Regulation, and the issuance of the provisional 81-122

"~ " I a.

..e._.

.m. m.e u.-

O 3

<- l construction permit as proposed by the Director of Regulation.

Order j

i Pursuant to the Act and the Coc: mission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Regulation issue a provisional con-struction permit to the Jersey Central Power and Light Company and the Metropolitan Edison Company substantially in the form set forth in Appendix "A" to the Notice of Hearing in this proceeding.

IT IS MRTHER ORDERED, in accordance with 10 CFR Sections 2 760, 2 762 and 2 764 of the Cccmission's Rules of Practice, that this I

Initial Decision shall be effective i= mediately and shall constitute

~

the final action of the Commission forty-five days after the date of issuance, subject to the review thereof and further decision of the

• \\

I Cocnission upon its own motion or upon exceptions filed pursuant to the cited rules.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L

M A\\W Clarke Willia =s I

/

/ b

[/ (j l ' 4 1 1 s Abel Wolr.an

- &.. f _)

/, /,yL9 e w

' f D. Bond, Chairman Issued:

v October 31, 1969 Gemantown, Maryland 81~123 T

e

.4