ML19326C873
| ML19326C873 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1968 |
| From: | Briggs R, Quarles L, Wells A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004280798 | |
| Download: ML19326C873 (11) | |
Text
,
.r 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 7/40'~ jh / T l e 4
r*
A a
[jkss
\\
s ___
In the Matter of
)
)
ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
DO.CKET NO. 50-313
)
(Russellville Nuclear Unit)
)
APPEARANCES W. Horace Jewell, Esq., and Philip K. Lyon, Esq.
of House, Holmes & Jewell, 1550 Tower Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Roy B. Snapp, Esq._,
1725 K Street N.. W.,
Washington, D. C., on Behalf of the Applicant Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq., on Behalf of The Regulatory Staff of the U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission Mr. E. F. Wilson, Director, Division of Radiation -
Standards, Arkansas Department of Health Dr. Howard K. Suzuki, Professor of Anatomy, University of Arkansas School of Medicine _and Chairman of The Arkansas Conservation Council, on behalf of himself and Dr. Joe F. Nix, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, Arkansas Mr. S. Ladd Davies, Director, Arkansas Pollution Control Commission 1
.c
.. ~
2 INITIAL DECISION This is an Initial Decision on the question of whether a provisional construction permit should be issued to the Arkansas Power and Light Company to construct in accordance with its application dated November 29, 1967, as amended, a pressurized water reactor to be located in Pope County, near Russellville, Arkansas and designed to operate initially at 2452 Megawatts (thermal).
An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, established in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission, com-prised of three members, whose signatures appear on this document, held a public hearing in the matter on October 30, 1968, in Russellville, Arksnsas, pursuant to notice published in the Federal Register on September 20, 1968. 1/
PARTIES The Applicant and the Regulatory Staff of the Commission made timely notices of appearance as parties to the pro-coedings.
There were no petitions to intervene and this was not a contested proceeding within the meaning of the Commission's Regulations.
LIMITED APPEARANCES Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.715 (a), limited appear-ances were made in the following order during the Hearing:
Mr. E. F. Wilson, Director, Division of Radiological Health, Arkansas Department of Health 1/
3 Dr. Howard K. Suzuki, professor of Anatomy, University of Arkansas School of Medicine and Chairman of the Arkansas Conservation Council.
(Dr. Suzuki's statement was made on behalf of himself and Dr. Joe F. Nix, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia.)
Me. S. Ladd Davies, Director, Arkansas Pol-lution Control Commission.
SITE AND PLANT Site The site of the proposed reactor is on the north bank of the Dardanelle Reservoir on the Arkansas River.
It covers about 1,100 acres and has a minimum exclusion area radius of 3430 feet.
The area around the site is largely undeveloped and rural - the nearest population center having a population in excess of 25,000 is located about 55 miles south of the plant.
The site is underlain by shale and sandstones of Pennsyl-vanian Age, the overburden consisting of alluvial clay and silty clay that ranges in thickness from 13 to 23 feet.
No identifiable active faults or other recent geologic structures exist that would localize earthquakes in the immediate vicinity of the site.
The Staff and its consultants have concluded that an acceleration of 0.1 g would adequately represent earthquake disturbances likely to occur within the lifetime of the facility and that an acceleration of 0.2 g would adequately represent the ground motion from the maximum earth-quake likely to affect the site.
These parameters will be used in the seismic design of all Class I structures and systems.
The Applicant will' design for a tornado having a tangential velocity of 300 mph, a translational wind velocity of 60 mph, and a barometric pressure drop of 3 psi in 3 seconds.
Plant The proposed reactor will have a closed-cycle, pressurized-water nuclear steam system housed in a prestressed concrete containment building.
The containment structure will be a steel-lined, prestressed post-tensioned concrete, vertical cylinder with flat bottom and shallow-domed roof.
The plant will have a steam and power conversion sys tem housed in an
.6 4
2:
4 auxiliary building and an outside electric switchyard.
Additional auxiliaries include a radioactive waste disposal system, fuel storage and handling facilities,
. emergency power systems, and other engineered featurer.
The principal features and design bases for the steam supply system are similar to those of the Metropolitan Edison Company's Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
The_ principal engineered safety features are the emergency core cooling systems, the containment ventila-tion system, and the containment spray system.
A pro-tection system monitors primary coolant and reactor building pressures and will automatically initiate opera-tion of the engineered safety feature systems if pre-established safety limits are reached.
Although the plant is expected to operate initially at 2452 megawatts thermal, the expected ultimate capacity of this plant is 2568 (Mwt).
The Applicant has designed the major plant components including the containment structure and other engineered safety features for a power level of 2568 (Mwt) and has used this power level in analyzing postulated accidents under the guidelines of 10 CFR, part 100.
The Regulatory Staff has evaluated the containment structure and other engineered safety features for 2568 (Mwt).
(The thermal and hydraulic characteristics were evaluated at 2452 (Mwt)).
Before operation of the reactor is permitted at 2568 (Mwt), or indeed at the 2452 (Mwt) power level, there must first be a review of the proposed operation both by the Commission's Regulatory Staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
The facility architect-engineer will be the Bechtel Corporation.
The nuclear steam system will be furnished by The Babcock and Wilcox Company and the turbine and generator will be supplied by the Westinghouse Corporation.
The con-struction contractor has not been selected.
GAS LINE The site has an unusual feature in that a 10 3/4 inch O.D. gas transmission line crosses it with the closest approach being 600 feet from the proposed plant.
The Applicant will reconstruct 1200 feet of-the line built in 1928 so that it will meet the same specifications as the portion of the line constructed in 1962 to which it will be connected.
The Ap-plicant has examined the effect of a break in this line and l
. has found that even if the isolating valves on either side of the plant are not closed, the gas would create no hazard.
If ignited, it would burn without harm to the plant; and if not ignited, it would-diffuse harmlessly into the
atmosphere.
The Board recommends that the Applicant give considera-tion to the dispersion of the gas under adverse weather conditions in the course of further evaluation of the problem prior to the operation of the plant.
IODINE REMOVAL The containment for the Russel3ville nuclear unit has three cooling systems and two spray systems to remove heat under accident conditions.
According to the Applicant's accident analysis either system or parts of both systems have the capacity to limit the maximum pressure of the design-basis accidents to acceptable values and to reduce the pressure at an acceptable rate.
Operation of the emergency core cooling systems prevents melting of the core and no special provisions for taking out iodine was found to be necessary to keep the radiation doses within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines, However, in consideration of the Maximum Hypothetical s_,
~ ~
Accident, (MHA), which involves melting of the c_ ore, and on recommendation of the Regulatory Staff, the Applicant modified the design so that the spray would be an alkaline thiosulfate solution designed to absorb iodine from the containment atmosphere and fix it in solution.
The~Ap-plicant's analysis indicated that the half-life for re-
~~ moval of iodine from the containment by the spray system would have to be 1410 seconds or less in order to reduce the two hour dose at the exclusion distance to 300 rom.
Tho Applicant calculated a half-life of 90 seconds at full capacity and indicated that results of experiments, con-ducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, when scaled to Russellville conditions, gave an iodine removal half-life of 23 seconds.
The staff analysis of the MHA indicated that a dose reduction factor of 2.9 must be obtained from the spray system for the two hour dose at the exclusion boundary to be within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
The Staff calculated a dose reduction factor of 4.1 and estimated that the iodine rcmoval half-life used in the calculations was conservative by a factor of 4 to 8.
In the calculations the Applicant assumed that 5% of the iodine would be in an organic compound that would not be removed by the sprays.
The Staff was more conservative and assumed 10% unremovable iodine,
c -
~
s 6
At the Board's request the Applicant and Staff supplemented the application and the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report with written and oral testimony con-corning the effectiveness of cpray systems for removing iodine from'the atmosphere in a containment building.
The testimony included discussion of (1) the chemical action of the additive and the stability of the spray solution under accident and post accident conditions, (2) the compatibility of spray solutions and structural materials, (3) the behavior of organic iodides, (4) experi-ments co~pleted and those yet to be done, and (5) methods of calculation and the conservatism included in the calculations.
The Applicant an5 the Staff concluded that work completedorplanned_}_jprovides reasonable assurance that an adequate spray system can be designed for the Russell-ville Nuclear Unit.
The Board concurs in this conclusion.
QUALITY ASSURANCE The Applicant will have a multi-level quality assurance program, the primary purpose of which is to insure that the codes, standards, and quality requirements of the Preliminary Safety ~ Analysis' Report, as well as those in the detailed specifications and designs, are adhered to.
The quality assurance and control programs of the Applicant will be separate and independent from those of its vendors, con-tractors, and construction uanager.
To discharge its overall responsibility for quality as-surance the Applicant will give final review and approval to the designs and specifications for the plant.
It will continually review the quality control programs of the j
cantractors and vendors by examination of inspection records and by spot checks.
This will be accomplished through a Quality Assurance Committee which reports directly to the Vice-President and Chief Engineer of the company.
i The Bechtel Corporation as the architect-engineer and construction manager is responsible to the Applicant for l
2/
~~
." Applicant's Response to the Board's Question on Iodine
- Removal" (inserted after page 148 of the transcript of the Hearing), and " Iodine Removal by Sprays", prepared by Division of Reactor Licensing. (Staff Exhibit No. 3)
~
-1 3
d 7
assuring the adequacy of the quality control programs of the contractors and fabricators.
Bechtel engineers will review and approve all designs and specifications.
Bechtel will have a Quality Assurance Engineer in residence at the site.
A separate field inspection force and ield engineers _will do the inspections on site and in verdors'
. shops.- The Quality Assurance Engineer is independent of the construction force and has authority to stop wcrk on-site if the quality control requirements are not met.
Presumably the engineers responsible for off-site inspections have similar authority.
The Board is of the opinion that they should.
Babcock and Wilcox, supplier of the nuclear steam system and two. fuel cores, will carry out inspections and other control measures in its own ! hops and in those of its suppliers.
Bechtel and the Applicant, through the control program outlined above, will assure that the construction contractor, when selected, provides adequate quality control.
The qualifications and experience of the key personnel concerned with quality assurance ~in the organizations of the Applicant, Bechtel, and Babcock and Wilcox are reflected in the record.
Insight into the Staff's method of evaluation of the Applicant's quality assurance program and the adequacy of this evaluation is obtained from the Staff's Safety Evaluation and the questions. asked the Applicant by the Staff during its review as reflected in the supplements to the application.
Neither guidelines.nor criteria have yet been published, or made available to the Board, although Staff testimony at this Hearing, as at some -previous ones, indicates that these are
.boing developed ~
The findings-required to be made by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards will'be facilitated if some explicit-quidelines become available against which a quality assurance: program can be examined.
Such guidelines, we believe, will also-be helpful at other points in the= regulatory process.
Although explicit standards are not available, the Board is satisfied,Lin= light of the information in the record, that the examination in this case is adequate.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The major areas of research'and development relate to emergency core cooling system. design including blow-down forces, and thermal shock; development of final thermal--
hydraulic,' nuclearfand mechanical design parameters including
(
. e 8
fuel rod failure tests, high burn-up fuel tests, and xonon
'1 oscillation studies; control rod drive unit tests; in-core neutron detector tests; once-through stena generator development and tests; development of details of iodine
- removal system; and development of. prompt fuel failure detectors.
The~ objectives of these programs have been defined, and a schedule for the acquisition of information prior to completion of ponstruction of-the proposed facility has boon established. $
~
TRAINING PROGRAM The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the Regulatory Staff.took special note of the need for early training of a sufficient number of personnel for the operating staff.
.The Board considers it desirable to have some senior operating staff. with significant experience in the operation
' of a nuclear power plant.
FINDINGS ~, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER Conclusions of the Regulatory Staff, with respect to
_the required-findings set forth in the Notice of Hearing arc favorable to the granting of a construction permit.
The Ady'sory Committee on Leactor Safeguards, in its report to the Commi7sion, dated Spptember 12, 1968, states that it S
~ _ believes that if' consideration is given to the items dis-
- cussed in its report the proposed.renctor can be constructed j
at the-Russellville Site with reasonable assurance that it i
can be' operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.-
t
.This being an uncontes ted case the Board is required to. reach conclusions on only two issues:
whether or not the
- application and'the. record of the proceedings contain suf-ficient. information and whether or not the review of the ap-
' plication by the Commission's Regulatory Staff has been adequate'to support the proposed findings by-the Director of Regulation as set forth in the Notice-of Hearing.
The Board
. finds. affirmatively on each of these. issues.
In so doing it
. adopts >the~ substance - but not every1dotail and exact wording -
of1the1 findings of fact and the conclusions of law proposed by'the Applicant:and Staff.
3/ " Applicant's.Rosponso to the Board's' Question on Research
. and Development"- (inserted. a f ter - page ' 147. of ' the -transcript
~
of the-Hearing).
a m
O e--
y
In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
- 1..
The Director of Regulation is authorized to issue a provisional construction permit pursuant to Section 104 b of the Act substantially in the form of Appendix A to the " Notice of Hearing on Application for Provisional Construction Permit" in the captioned matter within ten (10) days from the date of the issuance of this decision; and 2.
In accordanco with 10 CFR 2.764, good cause not having boon shown to the contrary, this initial decision shall be immediately effective; and, in the. absence of any further ordor from the Commission, shall constituto the final decision of the Commission forty-fivo (45) days after the issuance, subject to the review thereof and further de cision by the Commission upon exceptions filed by any party pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.762 or upon its own motion.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,j
. /.
i 1 *-
- s.
.. c).
.s R. Beecher Briggs
/
- - ). f,7 '
/_
. y,-
/l i
or,
Lawrence R. Quarles
)
![.
(j) 2..
Algi
,A.
Wells Dated at:
Washington, D. C.
this 4 day of December, 1968
-g. cJ. Sin d f
- .I
\\
/ y.;.y i+.-
~.
twerEn STASS CF AMERICA
/c-)'
ATOKIC DIERGY CD)4GESIGN
/.{/
- \\
j Ei
!"Q- (,>
F s
In the Matter of
)
i L
r,k.g
' ~ ',.,
)
'.T'
-c h'
Qf I
AREAMIAS POWER & LIGHT C(MPANY l
Dnehart No. 50-313 Vj.'>!'.;',f'??j y'
.T (Russellville Nuclear thit)
J C M fIFICATE OF CERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the IDITIAL DECIBION dated 6
in the captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the
)
l thited States mail, first class or air mail, this V34 day of Oc.. if 4 r :
i A. A. Wells, Esq., Chairman Roy B. Snapp, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1725 K Street, N. V.
U. S. Atcutic Iberty Crxef noion Washin6 ten, D. C. 2006 l
- -Mnaton, D. C. 20545 i
Horace Jewell, Esq.
J. D. Bond, Esq.. Altercate chairman Edward D. Dillco, Jr., Esq.
Atcaric Cafety and Licensing Board Philip K. IJen, Esq.
U. S. Atouric Energy Ccentissica House, Holmes and Jewell W==hi"gton, D. C. 20545 1550 '"over Bn*1aine Little Rock, Ar;tansas 72201 Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles,* v2 l
School of Engineering ani Ecmorable Wayne Nordin Science e ulce, Pope County University of Virginin B u nellville, Arkansas 72801 Charlottesvilla, Virginia 22Al Mr. J. D. Phillips, Vice President Mr. R. B. Briggs, Director Arkanses Power & Light company Molten 6 alt Beactor Fr % -.
Sixth and Pine Streets Oak Rid e National Laboratory Pine Bluff, Arkan=== 71601 6
P. O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Honorable Vinthrop Rockefeller i
l Oovernor, State of Arkansan l
Dr. John C. Geyer, Chairman Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Department of Sanitary Engineerinc and Water Resources J. T. Herren, M. D., State Health The Johns Hopkins thiversity Officer Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Arkansas Boaz11 of Health i
Little Rock, Arkansas 722 1 i
Thamas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
Regulatory Staff Mr. R. M. Millvee; Jr., Director l
U. S. Atomic Energy Crw=4 maica Arkansas Industrial INrveloImment l
Washington, D. C. 2545 Coussisaien 205 State Capitol N ildinc 1
Little Rock, Arkcusas 72201 I
i l
t
j I
i 50-313 4 I
Mr. Har.1ma T. Holmes 2haclear Project Digineer Arkansas Power & Light Company Ninth and Iouisiana Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 722)3 Inferination copies to:
Mr. Everett Ewell Public Service Director Arkansas Polytechnic College Russellville, Arkanama 72 M 1 I
Mr. E. 7. Wilson, Director Division of Radiological Health Arkansas State Board of Health l
Litt1m Rock, Arkansas 72201 I
Hr. S. Ladd Davies, Director I
Arkanaam Pollution Control i
Caamission 1100 Harringte Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dr. Howard K. Surici Ikiversity of Arkansas Medical Center Little B mk, Arkan=== 72201 O,
f, lyt.'litr n o k. m
- 1 ( <.
.v-l Office of the Secretau7 iV cc:
A. A. Wells T. F. u===1h= Wit F. W. Karas H. I. Sutith f
a