ML19326C893
| ML19326C893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1968 |
| From: | Briggs R, Quarles L, Wells A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326C888 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004280811 | |
| Download: ML19326C893 (12) | |
Text
.
Og*
~
P3CD t.UTIL. E/A 50-3I3 g t i l co UNITED STATES OF AMERICA o
-s S>
c o c 7. E ii 3 ATOF.IC ENERGY COFMISSION mn l-7 NOV12 $3%u
$$$el*-[S$l' I
c.c.n In the Matter of
)
I I M g\\@
)
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-313
)
(Russellville Nuclear Unit)
)
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY THE APPLICANT AND THE AEC REGULATORY STAFF (IN THE FORM OF A PROPOSED INITIAL DECISIONS 9
Preliminnrv Statement 1.
This proceeding involves the application of the Arkansas Power & Light Company (" Applicant"), dated November 29, 1967, and ten subsequent amendments (hereinaf ter collec-tively referred te as the " application"), properly filed under
~
section 104 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as atended
("Act"), for a provisional construction permit to construct a presiiuri.bedwaterreactor,designedtooperateinitiallyat
'""~"2452 m~ehawatts (thermal), to be located at the Appl!. cant's
~
~
b sitejn Polk County, Arkansas, approxicately six miles from Russellville, Arkansas.
8004280h((
J
.s.
~
2.
The application has been reviewed by the regula ory staff (" staff") of the Atomic 2.iergy Commission ("Cc= mission")
and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguard.s, both of which concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed ' facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed site uichout undue risk to the health and se.fety of the public.
(Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr.139, pp. 3, 43 and 45.)
3.
In accordance with the requirements of the Act and a 1/
Notice of Hearing published September 20, 1968, 33 F.R. 14243),
a public hearing was held before this Atomic Sa"fety and Licensing Board' (" Board") in Russellville, Arkansas,' on October 30,19h8,toconsiderwhetheraprovisionalconstructionpermit should be issued to the Applicant.
The parties to the proceed-ing were the Applicant and the staff.
The proceeding was not a " contested proceeding" within the meaning 'of 10 CFR S 2.4(n) of the Commission's " Rules of Practice".
4.
P ursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.715 of the. Commission's " Rules of Practice", limited appearances were made during the hearing By the Director of the State. of Arkansas Pollution Control 1/
Pursuant thereto a prehearing conference was held on October 15, 1968, in Washington, D. C.
2-
o
.a.
Commission, a representative of the State of Arkansas Depart-ment of Health, and by one other person.
(Tr. pp. 92-97,98-100,.
101-106.)
Findines of Fr.ct 5.
The Applicant is a corporation, all of whose common stock is owned by Middle South Utilities, Inc., a public utility holding company.
It is soundly financed and has signifi-cant resources at its command.
The Applicant plans to finance 3
the cost of construction of the. proposed facility as an integral part of its total construction program, namely in the ordinary course of busine-' chrough funds derived from operations and through sale of securities.
(Testimony of A. B. Coen, Tr.
109-114; testimony of C. A. Lovejoy, Tr.134, pp. 2-4) 6.
The application contains a description of the site and the basis for its suitability, a detailed description of the proposed facility, including those reactor syst'ns and e
features which are essential to safety, an analysis of the safety features provided for in the facility design [ and an evaluation of various postulated accidents and hazards involved in the operation of such a facility and the engineered safety 6
3-t
features provided to ' limit their effect.
Additional testimony and documentary evidence relative to thesc matters is included
.in the evidentiary record.- Also included in the application is evidence of the technical cualifications of the Applicant, including-those of its contractors, to design and construct the facility.
The Staff Safety Evaluation secs forth the consideration given to the important safety features,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.
(Tr. 139)
- 7. The Applicant has gained experience in the construction and operation of nuclear powered generating stations as a result of its participation in the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide
/
Reactor Facility (SEFOR) and through its participation in the Peach Botton Atomic Power St.ation Project.
(Summary of Application, Tr.131, p. 44; Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr.139,.
- p. 38.)
The Babcock & Wilcox Company, which will design and furn,ish the nuclear steam supply.systea and the first core, has had considerable experience in the design, development and constyuction of reactor systems and co=ponents.
The 3echtel Corporation, which has had broad experience 1in the nuclear
- field, has been retained by the Applicant as Architect / Engineer 9
>M6 Ge'-
pm M
,m...,,,_mp
_,___g_
.c
-w and Manager of Construction of the facility and will provide engineering services for design and construction.
(Summary of Application, Tr.131, pp. 43-47; Staff safety Evaluation, Tr. 139, pp. 38-39.)
8.
The plant site is located in Pope County, Arkansas, on the north bank of the Dardanelle Reservoir on the Arkansas River.
The site covers about 1,100 acres and has a minimum exclusion area radius of 3,430 feet.
The aroa around the site is largely undeveloped and rural. The nearest population center having a population in excess of 25,000 is located about 55 i
miles south of the plant.
(Summary of Application, Tr.131, pp. 5 and 6; Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr.139, p. 4.)
The plant' design will take into account local hydrological and other special conditions (such as the gas transmission line) as well as the possibility of earthauakes, floods and severe meteorolog-ical conditions'such as tornadoes.
(Summary of Application, DTr. 131, pp. 6-12; Staff Safety Evaluation,.Tr. 139, pp. 5-6 and 13 ; te.st imony o f Mr. H. T. Holme s, Tr. op... 190 195.and. -...... -
....~
testimony; of.Mr. Albert. Schwencer,;Tr. - pp. 196-197.).
-9.
Th> design of the. plant's: major systems and components
~
which bear-significantly on the acceptability of the facility O
e
9
- s at the proposed sito under the site. criteria guidelines identi fled in 10 CFR Part 100 of the Commission's regulations have been analyzed and evalented by the Applicant and the staff at
- a. core power level of 2568 megawatts (thermal) the ultimate reactor power level expected for the facility.
(Summary of Application, Tr.131, p. 3; Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr.139,
- p. 1.)
10.
The proposed facility incorporates numerous systems, components and features for the protection of plant personnel and the public and is similar in design to plants incorporating pressured water rocctors which have been previously approved for construction by the Commission. (Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr. 139, p. 6.)
An important safety feature is the containment system uhich will completely enclose the reactor and major
~
components of the primary coolant system.
The contain=ent 3
system consists of a reinforced prestressed concrete structure lined with a vapor tight steel place.
The containnent
- structure is designed to accommodate, Nichout loss.cf integrity, functional loads resulting from a loss-o -coolant accident occurring simultaneously with the maximum 1.ypothetical earth-quake and normal operating loads.
(Summary of Applicati:n, '
m Tr.131, pp.19-21; Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr.139, pp.
22-25.)
- 11.,The proposed facility has tuo separable cooling systems which assure adequate core cooling and pressure reduction within the containment structure even if a loss-of-coolant accident should occur.
For immedfa e short-term cooling, an emergency core cooling system will in' ject cool borated water into each of the primary coolant loops and directly into the reactor vessel, thereby limiting energy and fission product release into the containment.
For cooling con-tainment air to reduce containment vessel internal pressure in the event of an accident, there are tuo independent spray systems which deliver cool borated water into the containment atmosphere.
These systems will provide borated water contain-ing dissolved sodium thiosulphate and sodium hydroride to remove iodine in the~ event of an accident.
(Summary of Application, Tr.131, pp. 21-23; Staff Safety Analysis, Tr.
139, pp. 7, 9 and 18-22, and testimony of Mr. E. T. Holmes, Tr.146, pp.1-8, Staff Exhibit No. 3.)
12.
The. Applicant and the staff recognize that in order G
,r 7 -
.e m
to develop the final design of the facility further inf ormation and data will be needed.
Such additional information and data-will be developed by research and development projects in the course of the final design work for the plant.
In addition, some of the basic work in progress is expected to provide added. confirmation that the proposed designs are conservative.
The major areas of research and development include the emergency core cooling system; development of final thermal-hydraulic, nuclear, and mechanical design parar.cters including i
fuel failure tests, zenon oscillation studies, and fuel burnup tests; control rod drive unit tests, in-core neutron detector costs; once through steam generator development and tests; development of design details of iodine removal system; and e
development of prompt fuel failure detectors.
The objectives of these programs have been defined, and a schedule for the a
furnishing of information prior to completion of construction C
of the proposed facility has been established.
(Summary of Application, Tr.131, pp. 37-42; Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr.
139, pp. 32-34; testimony of Mr. H. T. Holmes, Tr.148, pp. 1-8.)
13.
The Applicant, Bechtel and Babcock and Wilcox have I
8-i
established an adequate quality control and assurance program to assure facility conformance with design requirements, recognized codes, and good engineering practice. ' The quality assurance and control programs of the Applicant will be separate and independent from its vendors, centractors, and construction manager.
(Summary of Application, Tr.131, pp.
33-36; Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr.139, pp. 39-42; cestimony of Mr. H. T. Holmes, Tr. 154-171 and testimony of Mr. C. G.
Long, Tr. pp. 182-185.)
14.
The activities to be' conducted under the provisional construction permit will be within the jurisdiction of the United States,. and all of the directors and principsi officers
' of the Applicant are _ United States citizens.
The Applicant is not owned, controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation or a foreign government.
The activities to be t.
conducted do not involve any restricted data, but the Applicant 4
, ).ja.s agreed to safeguard any such data which might become involved in accordance with 10 CFR 6 50.33(j).
Special nuclear caterial for use as fuel in the proposed facility will be subject to Commission regulations and will be obtained from S
I
(
scurecc of supply, so that there vill be no diversion of such material.
(Summary of Application, Tr.131, pp. 47-45; Staff Safety Evaluation, Tr. 139, p. 42.)
15.
The application and the proceeding thereon ecmply with the requirements of the_ Act and the Commission's regula-tions.
There are no unresolved safety questions pertinent to the issuance of the provisional construction permit.
Con clusion s 16.
Upon consideration of the entire record in this proceeding and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this Board concludes that the applica-tion and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient information, and the review of the, application by the staff has been. adequate to' support (1) the findings proposed to be made e.
by the Director of Regulation, _and (2) the issuance of the provisional construction permit as proposed by the Director of Regulation, as ' set forth in the Notice of hearing in this proc'aeding.
a
Order 17.
Pursuant to the Act end the Cc= mission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Regulation issue a provisional construction permit to the Arkansas Pcuer & Light Company sub-stantially in the form set forth in Appendix "A" to the Notice of Hearing in this proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, in accordance with 10 CFR 53 2.750, 2.752*and 2.764 of the Commission's " Rules of Practico", that this Initial Decision shall be effective 1:=ediately and shall constitute the final action of the Commission forty-five (45) days after the date of i~ssuance, subject to review thereof and further decision of the Com:ission upon its own motion or upon exceptions filed pur-suant to the cited rules.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ECARD Algie A. Wells, Chairman R. 3. Briggs Laurence R. Quarles -
Dated this
' day of.Nove=ber, 1968
... ~
l
~.. -
1
l IBI25lD STATES OF AMERICA A52 TIC NET CC80GSSION In the Matter of l
ARE1EAS POWER & LIGEf CCBWAMf
}
h ekat No. 50-313 (Pn==*11v111a Thelaar Ikit)
J I
CERFIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of ORDER CORR MfIDG TBAECRIPf dated l
movember 27, 1968 in the captioned natter have been served on the following by deposit in the thited States mail, first class or air mail, this 27th day of November 1968:
I A. A. Wens, Esq., Chaixsan Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
At mie Safety and Licensing Board Regulatory Staff I
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Cmantasion l
W- ^4= sten, D. C. 20545
- ^4= sten, D. C. 20545 i
J. D. Band, Esq., Alternate Chaiziman Roy B. Snapp, Esq.
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Doerd 1725 K Street, N. W.
i U. S. Atmie Energy Cematissbon UmaMngton, D. C. 2D006 Washingtcan, D. C. 20545 i
Horace Jewell, Esq.
Dr. Laurence R. Quarles, Dean Edward B. Dillon, Jr., Esq.
hhaal of R'gineaM.ng and Applied Philip K. lyce, Esq.
i Science House, W1==s and Jewell thiversity of Virginia 1550 Tower Buihiing Charlottesville, Virginia 225D1 Little Rock, Arkanaan 72201 l
i Mr. R. B. Briggs, Director J. T. Herren, M. D., State Molten Galt Reactor Pro 6 ram Health Officer Oak Ridge National Imboratory Arkansas Board of Health P. O. Box Y Littaa Rock, Arkansas 72201 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 i
l Mr. R. M. Millwee, Jr., Director i
Dr. John C. Geyer, Chairman Arkansas Tadustrial Dev=1&t Department of Sacitary Engineering Cematission i
and Water Resources 205 State Capitol Buitains l
The Johns Hopkins thiversity Litt2a Rock, Arkansas 72201 Baltimore, Mary 1 sad 21213 n
! < *, i_,
'i /
i ofr1ce of the secretary g
ce A. A. Wells f
r T. F. Engelhardt F. W. Karas E. I,6mith I
l
-