ML19319D774
| ML19319D774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1968 |
| From: | Bond J, Paxton H, Winters C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319D760 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003250775 | |
| Download: ML19319D774 (9) | |
Text
- _ _ _.
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATGEC ENERGY CGOESSION In the Matter of the Application by
' SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT DOCKET NO. 50-312 For a Provisional Construction Permit for Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1 in Sacramento Caraty, California Appearances David S. Kaplan, Esq.
Attorney for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Attorney for the Regulatory Staff of the Atcaic Energy Ccaimission DECISION Pre 14minm y Statement 1.
This proceeding involves the application of Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Applicant) for a provisional construction permit to construct a light-water moderated piessurized water reactor for initial operation at core power levels up to 2452 megawatts thermal, to be located on the Applicant's 2,480-acre site located 8003250 ) ) 5
. in southeastern Sacramento County, California. However, the site and hazards evaluations are based on the proposed ultimate power of 2568 Mw themal.
2.
The application was reviewed by the Regulatory Staff (Staff) of the Atmic Energy Camnission (Ccanission) and by the Advisory Cannittee on Reactor Safeguards. They concluded that the described facility can be built at the proposed site with reasonable assurance that it can be operated without undue risk to the' health and safety-of the public.
3 Pursuant to a duly published Notice of Hearing (33 Fed. Reg.
1.1.099, August 3,1968) a hearing was held before this Atmic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in Sacramento, California. The parties to the proceeding were the Applicant and the Staff. There vere no intervenors; however, limited appearance statenents were made by two local area residents and by the Econanic Development Agency of the State of California.
4.
The hearing record shows that this is not a " contested pro-ceeding" as defined in Section 2.4(n) of the Cannission's Rules of Practice. Hence, the Board is instructed by the Rules and in the Notice of Hearing to detemine herein only.the issues of whether the application and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient infor-nation, and the review by the Canmission's Staff has been adequate, to support the finchga proposed to be made and the provisional con-struction permit proposed to be issued by the Director of Regulation.
1
a.
m
. Se findings and the pemit proposed by the Director of Regulation vere set out in and with the published Notice of Hearing.
5 The Applicant submitted its proposed findings and conclu-sions after presentation of the direct evidence on behalf of each party, and concurrence therein was subsequently expressed by the attorney for Staff. The parties vaived their rights to explicit rnlings by the Board upon the findings and conclusions so jointly proposed, and that vaiver was and is approved by the Board. Con-sideration has been accorded to that pleading and to the evidence of record in derivin6 the findin6s and conclusions and order hereinafter stated.
Findings of Fact 6.
The Applicant la a municipal utility district fomed under the laws of the State of California. It is financially sound and plans to finance the cost of construction of the proposed facility by the issuance and sale of revenue bonds as authorized.by Californin' law. The electrical generatin6 capacity of this facility is un-cannonly large in ecmparison to the size of the District's projected 2
peak and average load. This appears to raise no unusual safety questions within the purview of the issues before thc Board.
g This facility vill produce about 850,000' kilowatts. The 1967 peak demand for Applicant's power was 740,000 kilowatts; in July of 1968 a peak demand of "about 800,000 kilowatts" was experienced. Applicant now supplies power frcan its owned hydroelectricgenerators(240,000 kilowatts), and by purchases as needed.
3 4-7 Se site of the proposed facility consists of 2,480 acres of 3and all of which has been acquired by the Applicant except for 320 acres lying outside the exclusion area. The minimum distance fra the facility to the boundary of the exclusion area is 2,100 feet.
The nearest residence is appreimately 0 7 mile fra the facility.
The site is about 25 miles southeast of the City of Sacramento and about 26 miles north-northeast of the City of Stockton. The nearest population center with more than 25,000 inhabitants is Lodi, which is 17 miles south-southeast of the facility. 'Jhe low population area, within a 5-mile radius of the facility, is almost exclusively agri-cultural. All the water requirements for the facility vill be supplied fra a paping station on the Folsa South Canal which will be located about five miles vest of the site. Should cepletion of the m nal be delayed, the Applicant will construct a pipeline about 20 miles to Lake Natema on the American River.
8.
The application a:i the hearing record contain a description of the site and the basis for its suitability, a detailed description of the proposed facility including those reactor systems and features which are essential to safety, analyses of the safety features pro-vided for in facility design, evaluations of various postulated accidents, and the engineered safety features designed to limit their effect. The evidence sets out the consideration which was given by the Staff to the important safety features of the proposed facility and the significance assigned to those systems and features important
,, - ~
i
=
s 5-to the prevention and mitigation of accidents. Discussions and 1
testimony of record also enecampassed safety-related areas of design and. construction wherein currently available information, data, and details must be augnented by further analyses, experience, research and development.
9 The proposed findiny and conclusions sulamitted by the parties included--but these findings emit as not decisionally im-T portant--sany details about the facility which are essentially con-sistent with and supported by the record evidence. On the other hand,.the Board deems it consonant with its responsibilities to ccannent upon some matters which were not considered in depth in the j
pleading offered by the parties. The Board has encountered difficulty in concluding either that the application and the record are su C icient or that the Staff review has been adequate to support a finding by the Director of Regulation that the Applicant is technically qualified to design and construct the proposed facility, mis subject is deaned to warrant scue exposition of the Board's misgivings about the issue.
't
- 10. The Notice of Hearing stated that the Director of Regulation proposed to make an affizzative finding upon the issue of whether the Applicant is technically qualified to design and construct the proposed facility. The Proposed Find 4ny and Conclusicas sulanitted to the Board by the parties proposed'a finding "that the Applicant and its con-tractors are technically qualified to design and construct the facility".
The direct evidence for the Staff (its Safety Evaluation) states its f
e m
a-e, w
e
-g pn
-,w-qr,-
r-r,
--w ww-
~
r t'-
.. cenclusion that, "the Applicant, with the support of its con-tractors, is technically qualified to design and construct the proposed facility". The Board's findings and conclusions upon this matter are that the application and the record support the pleading's contention that the Applicant and.its contractors are technically qualified; the Staff-review has been adequate to support its conclusion that the Applicant, with the support of its contractors, is technically qmLH fied to design and construct the proposed facility.
- 11. It is recognized that the published issue concerning technical qual 15M. cations of the Applicant may not have been clearly resolved by the above conclusion that Applicant and ite coni;ractors have the requisite technical ccarpetence. The Board's i
position did not evolve solely fran whatever intention or inadver-tence led the parties to expand the area of search for technical I
campetence so as to include the contractors as well as the Applicant.
The license for this facility is to be issued to the Applicant solely, and not to its contractors whose obligations and responsibilities are subject to such definition as might be found in the existing or potential contract terms as evolved by the parties. That such pri-vate contractual arrangements are not reviewed by the Staff or by j
the Board suggests that further safety evaluations of this facility do and will require attentive surveillance by the Ccannission's l
4 W licensing officials.
- 12. The Board gave considerable attention to another elusive finding proposed to be made by the Director of Regulation; namely, "Such further technical or design infomation as may be required...
... will be supplied in the final safety analysis report". The un-described technical aspects of quality control and inspection pro-grimas, and of operating procedures, include interpretations of the
" State of the art" as well as the timely results to be expected of research and development. At this stage, the practical question about such interpretations is whether they may be expected to re-present the result of sound engineering judgment. The Board con-cludes that an affizzative answer to this question is supported by l
the record's showing of the engineering capability and praise of l
the Applicant and its contractors and consultants, and of the I
promised vigilance and capetence of the Staff.
13 The Staff's annivses of possible accident consequences, made on assumptions appropriately conservative for this facility site and projected meteorology, suggest an area of need for data g It is not a function of the Board, in an uncontested proceeding j
such as this one, to make an initial or basic finding upon the i
published technical issues; see paragraph 4 above. Were it other-I wise, the Board's testing of the sufficiency and adequacy of tho j
record and the Staff review might well have probed more deeply--
albeit with less than a de novo review--the technical qnalifications matter. The Applicant's electricity generating experience is 11rdted to a period of about seven years during which time its generating capacity, exclusive.ly hydro-electric, has grown to 240,000 kilowatts.
~
, and evaluasions not yet available. The evidence indicates that a chemical agent in the spray system, or scsne alternate, is required to attain the iodine dose reduction factors to meet the limits stated in 10 CFR 100. It appears that it is not now possible to W
specify the chemical additive to be used. The Board finds this adequate in reliance upon the opinion of the Staff, that the pro-posed research and develognent program vill conclusively demon-strate and qualify a satisfactory agent or, in the. event that no agent can be ymlified, that the necessary dose reduction factor can be attained by the addition of more and sufficient charcoal absorbers to the engineered safeguards system. In the Board's opinion, the record supports the Staff's conclusion that the proposed research and development programs are reasonably desi ned to resolve 5
identified safety questions on a timely schedule.
Conclusions and Order
- 14. The Board has given careful consideration to the docu-mentary and oral evidence and pleadings produced by the parties for the purpose of resolvin6 the specific issues before it.
Based on that review of the entire record and'upon the foregoin6 findings of fact and discussions, the Board concludes that the application g The Staff's witness stated:
... Our position is that more research and develognent work is needed for the use of either sodium hydroxide or thiosulfate."
, and the record of the proceedins 'contain sufficient information, and the review by the Consnission's regulatory staff has been adequate, to support the findinga proposed to be made and the provisional construction permit proposed to be issued by the Director of Regulation.
1T IS' ORDERED, this 10th day of October, 1968.that the Director of Regulation' issue to Sacramento' Municipal Utility District a pro-visional ' construction permit as set out in Appendix "A" to the I
Notice of Hearing on this application which was published at 33 Fed.
Reg. 11099, dated August 3, 1968.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, in accordance with 10 CFR Sections 2 760, 2 762, and 2 761+, that this Initial Decision shall be effective inanediately and shall constitute the final action of the Ocmanission forty-five days after the date of issuance, sub, ject to the review thereof and further decision by the Consnission upon its own motion or upon exceptions filed pursuant to the cited rules.
AT NIC SAFRIT AND LICENSING BOARD Df. Husfi C. Paxtdn Dr. Charles E. Winters t
/
D.' Bond, Chairman Issues:
October 10, 1968' Gezzantown, Maryland