ML19312C367
| ML19312C367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1967 |
| From: | Buck J, Jensch S, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912130897 | |
| Download: ML19312C367 (13) | |
Text
_ _ _ _. _
_,_. - ~
L'
\\
s~c 2 L 9.
g\\
q Y'y nr
?. 7 u D00EE r"-
3*: - 1 x'7 g'.u UNITED STATES OF AMERICA QPN er:?
b:-
ATCMIC ENERGY CCMMISSICN y
p$f,. ".., *
r.
3 Cf VI In the Matter of
)
\\
)
caliIS DUKE POWER COMPA'iY
)
Docket Nos. g Q
)
- u-a 70 (Cconee Nuclear Station,
)
50-2c7 Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
PROPCSED FINDEGS OF FACT AED CONCLUSIONS CF LAW BY THE AEC ?J.,GUU.TCRY STAFF (rI THE FCEM CF A PRCPCSED INITLM. DECISION)
Preli=inary Statement 1.
This proceedint; involves the application of the Dake ?cver Cc=po.ny (Applicant), dated November 28, 1966, and five amendments thereto, dated April 1,1967, April 18,1967, April 29,1967, May 25, 1967 and June 16, 1967 (application) for licenses u er s 104 b. of the Atc=ic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), to ecnstruct three pressurized water reactors, each designed to initially operate at 2452 thermal tagavatts (MWt), and to be located at the Applicant's Cconee Nuclear Station site in Cconee County, South Carolina.
2.
The applicatics was reviewed by the re6ulatory staff (Staff) of the Atc=ic Enerc;y Cc==ission (Coc=ission) which concluded that the Apy_; cant has.:atisfied all Co==1ssion require =ents for the issuar.ca of the construction permits.
(Transcript (Tr.) p. 297, Staff's Safety Evaluation (S.E. ) pp. 76-77). The application was also reviewed by the Advisory Cc=mittee on Reactor Safeguards which concluded t.
l 1912180 {T 7 6
P.
".)
- that the proposed facilities can be constructed with reasonable assurance that they can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
(Tr. p. 397, S.E. Appendix A).
i 3
en July 24, 1967, the Co ission issued a " Notice of Hearing on Application for Provisional Construction Per=it" in the captioned
=atter which set out the issues to be considered and initially decided by this Atc=ic Safety and Licensing Board (Board), designated by the Cc==1ssion to conduct the proceeding, as a basis for dete mining whether provisional construction permits should be issued to the Applicant. This Nctice of Hearing was published in the FZDEFAL RIGIS 3 on July 27, 1967 (32 F.R. 10996).
4.
C'
- 8,1967, the State of South Carolina filed a petition w participate in this proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR li 2 715(c).
Participation of the State was permitted by order of this Soard dated August 11, 1967 2
5 cn July 25, 1967, eleven cities and towns, all located in North Carolina, filed a document entitled " Protest of Piedmonf, Electric Cities Against Duke Power Co=pany's Application For Unconditional Licenses Under The Atc=1c Energy Act of 1954 As A= ended".
In its y City of Statesville, City of High Point, City of Lexington, City of Monroe, City of Shelby, City of Albe=arle, Town of Cornelius, Town of Drexel, Town of Granite Falls, Town of Newton, and Town of Lincolnton.
L-
~
3-order of Au6uct 9, 1967, this Board determined. that the " protest" concerned issues which were not pertinent to and which vere outside the juricdiction of the Cor=ission and this Board. Accordingly, this Board dic=1ssed the " protest".
6.
Cn August 11, 1967, this same group of cities and towns and a non-profit corporation, Pied =ent Cities Power Supply, Inc.,
filed a joint petition for leave to intervene in this proceeding.
Cn the same day the joint petitioners also filed a. =otion to dismiss Duke Power Cc=pany's application for licenses under 3104 b. of the Act en the ground that the proposed facilities were not "research and develop =ent" facilities and therefore that the Co-4 scion was vithout juricdiction to issue licenses to the Applicant under H 104 b.
Argument on both the petition and motion va's held at the prehearing conference in this =atter.
By order of this Board dated August 28, 1967, leave to intervene was granted to tie eleven cities and towns because of their econc=1c interest :.n the proceeding; leave to intervene was denied to Pied =ent Cities Pavar Supply, Inc.,
because it lacked such econc=ic interest. By a sec:nd order of the same date, this Board denied the motion to dismiss Iuke Power Cc=pany's application in regard to Units 1 and 2 (ruling that these facilities are properly subject to license under s 104 b. of ;ce Act) and deferred ruling on the =otion in regard to Unit 31:2cause the record, as it then stood, was not complete enough to per=1t an evaluation of the propriety of licensing said Unit 3 under i 104 b.
This 3 card
._..__4
4 referred its order relating to the =otion to dismiss directly to the Co=ission for its review pursuant to 10 CFR S 2 730(f).
By
=c=omndu= and order of Septe=ber 8,1967, the Co=nission aff1=ed the order of this Board.
7 This proceeding is a " contested proceeding" pursuant to 10 CFR S2.h(n).
8.
Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing and in accordance with the requirements of the Act, a hearing was held before this Board in Walhalla, South Carolina, on August 29-30, 1967, and Septe=ter 12, 1967, to consider the issues specified for hearing as well as the issue oh the Comission's " jurisdiction to issue licenses to the Applicant under 8104 b. of the Act. The parties to the proceeding were the Appliennt, the Staff, and 'the eleven cities and towns (specified above) as joint intervenors. Seveml persons made li=ited appeannees, pursuant to 10 CFR H 2 715, during the hearing.
Findings of Fact 9
The Applicant is a large electric utility corporation that is soundly financed, and has plentiful resources at its comand.
It plans to finance the cost of construction of the proposed facilities in the sa=e ever as it finances its conventional plants, namely, in the ordinary course of business. About LO percent of the construction funds will be generated intemally frc= retained ea=ings and deprecia'; ion;
. A_ _..
~., _
- - - -._ u
the balance vill be initially f=ded through short-tem borrowing and vill be pe=anently fanded by sale of equity and debt securities.
(Tr. pp. 326-328; Tr. p. 437, Lovejoy Testimony p. 4).
- 10. The Applicant has had extensive experience in the design, constraction and operation of electric generating plants. Its perscnnel have been involved with nuclear power generat:en cince the early 1950s, cul=inating in participatica in the constraction and operation of the Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor at Parr, South Carolina.
The nuclear stea= system supplier, the Babcock & Wilcox C q any, designed and constructed the N. S. SAVA:C'A.-I and Indian Point 1 reactors, as well as the ATR and several research reactors.
In addition, Babcock & Wilcox is one of two co=panies presently supplying large reactor pressure vessels to industry. The Bechtel Corporation, which vill serve as architect-engineer for the project; has served as architect-engineer on =any nuclear projects over the last few years. The latest of i
these include the San Onofre, Turkey Point, Palisades, and Pcint Beach re ctor projects.
(Tr. pp. 318-321; Tr. p. 397, S.E. p. 74).
- 11. The site for the propcsed facilities is in eastern Oconee County, South Carolina, abcut eight =iles northeast of Seneca, South Carolina. The exclusion area vill have a one-=11e radius (from the center of Unit 2). The lov population distance is at least six =iles, and the nearec.t population center is Anderson, Scuth Carolina (population 41,000) located twenty-one miles southeast of the site. All land within 1
l l
l l
.- the exclusion area vill be either owned or centrolled by the Applicant. The site is characterized by scund, hard rcck foundations for otructures, freedo= frc= ficoding, an abundant supply of cooling vater from the future Lake Keovee, an on-site hydr.relectric station capable of supplying e=ergency power, and favorable conditions of hydrology, geolcgy, seis=clogy and =cteorology.
(Tr. p. 338, Partial Su= nary, pp. 3-7; Tr. p. 397, S.I. pp. 36).
- 12. The Applicant has requested an initial authorization to ccast met and operate the reactors up to 2452 XWt but anticipates that the reactors vill ulti=ately prove to be capable of operating at power levels of 2568 MWt. Acco:$1ngly, the design of the =ajor systems and centainment structures, which bear significantly cn the acceptability of the facilities under the site criteria guidelines identified in 10 CFR Part 100, have been analyzed and evaluated by the Applicant and the Staff at power levels of 2568 MWt.
(Tr. p. 397, S.S. p. 1).
13 Each nuclear stea= supply syste= consists of a light water
=cderated and cooled pressurized water reactor which transfers reactor heat to a turbine-generator unit. The reactors vill be fueled with lov enrichment uraniu= dioxide fael pellets contained in zirecrdu= reds.
Each core is c:= prised of cne hundred seventy-seven (177) fuel assemblies, each containing two hundred eight (208) fuel pins. Control of reactidty is acec=plished by sixty-nine (69) control rod cluster assemblies and by liquid poison (boric acid) in the reactor coolant. The liquid l
_ _.. =
1,
s"
. poicen is used to centrol long-tem reactivity of the core. The silver-indiu=-cad =iu= control red cluster asse=blies are used to centrol short-tem reactivity changes and to provide rapid shut-down capability. Control red cluster asse=blies are driven by c rack and pinion assembly through a =agnetic clutch. Nuclear flux level is =cnitored by neut: con detectors external to the reactor vessel and by in-core cha=bers.
(Tr. p. 397, s.E. pr. S-9).
- 14. Each centai=ent building has the shape of a right circular cylinder with a shallov spherical dc=e and flat base slab. A =ild steel liner is attached to the inner face of the concrete shell to provide leak-tightness. Th'e cylinder valls are prestressed both circu=ferentially and vertically, and the dc=e is prestressed in a three-way tendon syster.. The base slab e ploys reinforced concrete.
The design pressure of each conta1=ent is fifty-nine pounds per square inch and the contain=ents are to be proof tested at 115 percent of design pressure. The initial leak rate test will be at 100 percent of design pressure. A penetration roc = confine =ent system vculd process post-accident leakage from =ost containment penetrations through a filter syste= external to the contain=ent.
(Tr. p. 397, S.E. pp. 37 et seq.).
15 The plant design provides protection against the conse-quences of a break in a pri=ary coclant pipe of any size and at any location up to a double-ended rupture of a recirculation pipe. Assurance wi 5 %
, e m,
- g&
enspise y,
-f-
, of core integrity in the event of such occurrence is provided by high-pressure injection pu=ps, low pressure injection pt._ps, and sore flooding tanks (accu =ulators) which discharge borated water into the pri=a.y syste= if reactor pressure drops below six hundred (600) psi.
(Tr. p. 397, s.z. p. 50).
- 16. Assurance of contai=ent integrity is provided by the following =altiple engineered safeguard systems:
(a) contai=ent icolation syste=, (b) containment spray pumps which spray borated water into the conta1=ent atmosphere through redundant spray headers, and (c) emergency cooling units, each containing a fan and tube cooler for re=oving heat from the.conta1=ent at=osphere.
(Tr. p. 397, S.E. pp. 43, 55).
17 Multiple systems are provided for both emergency core cooling and containment cooling so that emergency functions can be carried out even with co=ponent failtre. A =altiplicity of offsite power lines is provided to assure a reliable source of power. Additional reliability in the povar source is attained by the availability of power frc= the Keovee hydroelectric plants either through the switchyard or through an undergrcund line.
(Tr. p. 397, s.3. pp. 56-58).
- 18. Unlike other recent pressurized water plants authorized for construction by the Co==ission Wich have used a U-tube steam generator in Wich the primary coolant enters and exits frc= the bottes cf the m m
/~.
, generator, Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 are designed to provide a single pass or once-through steam generator.
In this design, the primarf water enters the top of the generator, is cooled while passing down-vard through the Inconel tubes and exits from the bottom head.
Secondary feedvater is sprayed into an an=ulus in which there are no tubes near the generator carbon steel shell. The feedvater is heated as it falls by steam which is allowed to bypass from the heated region back to the annulus.
(Tr. p. 397, S.E. pp.:32 34).
19 The three units to te constructed will share certain auxiliary systems; but the principal safety systems and components, including the emergency injection and ccatainment cooling systa=s, are functionally independent. The sharing of the auxiliary features by the three units will not increase the probability or consequences of an accident.
fTr.p.
387,S.E.pp.70-71).
- 20. The proposed facilities incorporate design features which i
i vill require research and development in order to finalise design details. These design features include: once-through stead generator, control rod drive unit test, in-core neutron detectors, ther=al and hy!.raulic programs, emergency core cooling and xenon oscillations.
Info::=ation developed through the research and development program l
vill be supplied to the Staff to enable it to follow the development l
of the final designs of Cconee Units 1, 2 and 3
(>xr. pp. 306 309; 365-371; and 397, S.E. pp. 72-73).
\\
,m
~
t,'
21.
In a me=orandu= and order, dated Septe=ber 8, 1967, the Cc==1ssion confined n previous ruling of this Board in this proceeding that licenses for Oconee Units 1 and 2, if issued, =ay properly be issued under 3104 b. of the Act. This Board finds that Oconee Unit 3 is also a facility involved in the conduct of research and development activities leading to a de=onstraticn of practical value of such a facility for industrial or cc==ercial uses, as are Oconee Units 1 and 2.
Until such ti=e as the Cc==ission =ay fi:ui that prescurised water reactors have taen sufficiently developed to be of practical value for industrial or con =ercial purposec, pursuant-to Section 102 of the Act, licenses for such reactors may be issued only under !! 104 b.
4 of the 'Act.
In any eve:it, on the basis of the testi=ony adduced i
at the hearing, Ocenee Unit 3 is subject to the proposed research I
l and devele;=ent progra= to the same extent as Oconee Units 1 and 2.
(?r. pp. 306-308; Tr. p. 397, s.I. pp. 72-73).
CCNCLUSICNS AND CRDER t
- 22. Upon the basis of the consideratica of the entire '. record in thisproceeding,andinlightofthefindingsanddiscuss[ons hereinabove set out, this Ato=1c Safety and Licensing Ecard has concluded that:
2j Subsection 104 a, of the Act tich applies to facilities for use in=edicaltherapy,and6 lok 3. of the Act, tich applies to facilities for use in research and testing, not designed for the generation of power, are not applicable to this application.
I t
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
^~
.)
' 1.
Units 1, 2 and 3 are properly subject to license under 3 104 b. of the Act.
2.
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 3 50 35(a):
(a) The Applicant has described the proposed design of the facilities, including, but not li=ited to, the principal architectural and engineeri 4 criteria for the design and 2
has identified the =ajor features or co=po-nents incorporated therein for the protection of the health and safety of the public; (b) Such further technical or design info::=ation as may be required to co=plete the safety analysis and which can reasonably be left for later consideration vill be supplied in the final safety analysis report; (c) Safety features or components, if any, which require research and development have been described by the Applicant and the Applicant has identified, and there vill be conducted, a research and development progra= reasonably designed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or co=ponents; and (d) On the basis of the foregoing, there is reasonable assuruce that (1) such safety questions vill be
r 12 satisfactorily resolved at or before the latest date stated in the application for cc=pletion of construction of the proposed facilities and (ii) taking into consideration the site criteria con-tained in 10 CFR Part 100, the propose? facilities can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The Applica:t is technically qualified to des 16n and construct the propose!. facilities; Th'e Applica:t is financially qualified to design and construct the proposol facilities; and The issua;.:e of per=its for the construction of the facilities will not 4,e inimical to the co==on defense and security or to the healm and safety of the public.
1
(
- Pursuant to the Act and the Cc-4 ssion's regulations, IT IS CEEP.D t
TEl42, (1) the. ::stion of the intervenors to dis =1ss the application f
in regard t: U41t 3 is denied, (2) subject to review by the Co < ssion upon its o,n ::ation or upon the filing of exceptions in accordance with the "::alis of Practice",10 CFR Part 2, the Duke Power Co=pany is authori m tt construct the facilities in accordance with the application and with me' evidence and representations entered in the record at the l
._l
.~-.-._. -
/
. hearing; and the Director of Regulation is directei to issue provisional construction pe=1ts pursuant to E 104 b. of the Act subsatially in the fom of Appendices A, B, and C to the " Notice of Hearing on Application for Provisicnal Construction Pe=it" in this proceeding, within 10 days from the date of issuance of this decision.
TI IS FURN ORDERED, in accordance with 10 CFR 3 2 764, good cause not having been shown to the contrary, this initial decision shall be i=nciiately effective.
ATCMIC SAFHfY AND LICEGI::G 3 CARD John H. euck E 4h C. Paxton Samuel W. Jensch, Chai.~. m hted at this day of 1967 l
1 1
l l
- -