ML19329D490

Requests Amend to 700910 Exemption to Conduct Work Below Finished Grade Level at Site Prior to Issuance of CP

ML19329D490
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	01/07/1971
From:	Sampson G TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML19329D487	List: ML19329D486 ML19329D490
References
NUDOCS 8003090116
Download: ML19329D490 (4)

Text

C-

~ , .

, . s . 1 l ;, a.3 3,;. ::% ' ..

~ -

. . . - x'

- '~

, 3 .

= '

t '0- -

. m ee., m' -

Wa WSD0 _

• ' ' AVAPPTW M pay 42O 3dADISON Am UE ICLEDO,01110 43601* (419) 242-5731

, l -

l r .

OI2NN J. SAMPSON '

m ,,. - . -

January 7, 1971 + : I

, ,#- 1 4

Mr.' Harold L. Price, Director of Regulations. .

United States Atomic Energy Commission -

Washington, D.C. .

Ref: ' Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station .

Docket No. 50-346 -<a

Dear Mr. Price:

By letters dated June 4, July 24 and Augus t 12, 1970,.

we requested an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 550.12,-from.the -- i provisions of 10 CFR 5 50.10 (b) to allow us to peEform certain -

' vork prior to the issuance.of a construction permit for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The exemption was needed to .~~

meet the urgent public.need for power generation, which requiras that the station be available f or commercial operation by December 1, 1974. Your letter of September 10, 1970, granted our .

exemption request to allow concrete and reinforcing steel place-ment for construction of the ring foundation and walls of the -

shield building up to grade level (elevation 583 ' 6"), concrete and reinforcing steel placement for construction of mats, walls, and floor slabs of the auxiliary building up to grade level, and in- -

sta11ation of waterproof mambranes, all embedded piping, grounding, c.on d ui t s , floor drains and backfill up to grade level for the shield an'd auxiliary buildings construction. , .

\ -

.The scope o.f below grade work requested in the above L ' referenced June 4, July 24 and August 12, 1970 exemption request' ' '

l. letters, and~ granted in your letter of September 10, 1970,was based j . upon the assumption, which at the time appeared to be realistic s .

cud conservative, that a construction permit would be forthcoming .

l. -

by December 31, 1970, or' January 31,~1971, ~

i.e., seventeen or '

eighteen months.frespectively, after the initial fillag of the

'opplication for the construction permit. This once realistic casumption has been undermined.by a nucher of unusual circumstances N -

.: ." g f . ./ . n:. 'spogog6JJf. -

. -: va-

... .. y 2 7 .

. y .

q :. 7 . ..y.h.,*. ~.

' .s- '

'[. {. 4

^

.,  ; f., J-Q , I,,o ,4 $.;< . W-

• 74 , .

-Q _

'. d. I s ,

i . - -

, ,,;r r ' .t , . , , 2.

t: . . . _ . . - <

• y ~ * *

.:c.

(

=

Hr. Harold L. Price, Director of Regulations ,

United States Atomic Energy Commission January 7, 1971 Page 2

. L ~>

which have prevented the public hearing, which began on December 8, -

1970, from proceeding to a prompt and orderly conclusion. These '

circumstances include: ,

(a). a last minute change of counsel by a citizens' group petitioning for leave to intervene, which prompted the licensing board to grant the petitioners until the first day of the hearing to perfect their petition, which was then granted .

~

- on December 9, 1970; ,

(b) granting by the licensing board on December 10, 1970 of a late petition for leave to intervene by a . ,

. citizen living near the plant site; ,

(c) adj ournment of the hearing to January,5, 1971, to .

allow the intervenors in (a) and (b) to prepare '

their cases in accordance with conniements by counsel for such intervenors to be ready to pro- .g ceed on January 5, 1971;

~

(d) a. change of counsel by the intervenor in (b) on

~

December 29, 1970 and the grant to such new counsel of three additional uceks (to January 25) .u .

to prepare his case; and (e) reconsideration and granting on January 5, 1971  :

of a previously denied petition to leave to inter-vene by a petitioner who asserted that the grant

lof.its petition "will cause neither inconvenience

-to 'the parties nor delay in the proceedings" and the grant to such intervenor of three additional weeks (to January 25) to prepare its case.

}

As a result of the foregoing pattern of events we can ,

.- ' now only speculate on a possible' schedule of probable issuance ,

. . of a . cons tru ction perm'i't b ut such a permit, if it is authorized' j

~~~by'the licensing board, is not likely to be issued before the first of April,.1971. ~

. , .n ,

p J ,

e, O - # . t ,

~

. , , ;s - - -  :- ...~ ..,9..- .

. .- q . * ,.[. *

,, ,h[

• 4 *~

s"

.f... ,

.? ~ . . ~ 1.jl.{ . 5 ll 5 :' = ~-, , , ,.' ._ ? O h{f. ~

ui  :

s, .' -  : ?

.. ... , .. , --: y

• 3' , - .

q .

f*

-- ~ . .

, ,  ;-  ; 3,.

-r -

Mr. Harold.L. Price, , ,

Director of Regulations .

United States Atomic Energy' Commission January 7, 1971 Page 3

~

Our letter of August. 12, 1970, set forth in detail the ,

public need for the energy to'be produced by the proposed Davis- . A;."

Besse facility on a timely basis as of December 1, 1974. Your. ' .i .

letter of September 10, 1970, concluded that tha gr ant of the exemption then requested was in the public interest. The delay in the issuance of a construction permit to sometime after April 1, 1971, virtually precludes the availability c f commercial production of power from the Davis-Besse facility by December 1, 1974. The initiation in early February 1971 of further below finished grade level work as described below would materially ,

assist in preventing-the delay beyond December 1, 1974, from being significantly detrimental to the public interest. Accordingly, ._ ,

3 pursuant to the provisions of Section 50.12 of 10 CFR Part 50, we '

-~

request an amendment of the eremption granted in your letter of September 10, 1970, to perform the following work below finished '

grade level, i.e., below elevation 583' 6":

'{*

1) Installation of the containment vessel inside the 1. ' '

- valls of the shield building up to grade level , .

"~

(elevation 583' 6");

2) Placement of the concrete fill inside and outside the containment vessel bottom head and installation of embedments within the inside fill concrete.

3)

~

Placement of all concrete structures within the -

containment vessel up to grade level (elevation ,,

583' 6").

^ ~

. s The additional work which we are herein requesting to be

' included in the exemption would allow us to perform all of the -

necessary construction work below grade icvel in preparation for the above grade level work which would be performed under.a con-struction permit. The additional requested work is - to tally within L the physical confines of the work now authorized. The additional work involves no unresolved safety questions and will-produce no

, added effect on the environment". Such work is within the work reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Ret etor Saf eguards ,. which t

l- .. -

e -

l g -

g ,

- ,~ -4 - -

~-. _ , , ,

. i- - ' ' ,, ,

fi..,. ,,i,~ . c. .A y; . ,g g* -

4 .. ,

r s .- ._... .. . . _ .. ~..c .

w

c; , ,

.3: 2

>- . - ^

\ ** * ,

j . ,

Mr. Harold L. Price, -

Director of Regulations United States Atomic Energy Commission January 7, 1971 Page 4

• t' ,

reported f avorably on the proposed project in its report dated August 20, 1970, and the work reviewed and approved by the regulatory staff.

In regard to item 1) above, bottom head plates and cylindrical shell plates will be placed and welded to form the lower portion of the containment vessel which will be supported on temporary erection columns of steel pipe resting on the shield building foundation. Under item 2) above, the lower portion of the containment vessel will be anchored in exterior _

l and interior fill concrete, and the temporary erection columns _ ,

will be severed. In accordance with the opinion of the AEC General '

M ounsel relating to the Northern States Power Company's application . , ,

for an exemption for the Monticello facility, we feel that the work ,

described in item 1) does not require an exemption from the pro- w visions of section 50.10(b) because the steel shell of the contain-ment vessel bottom head will merely be resting.on the temporary ,.'l I columns and is therefore remo vab le until the work in item 2) is initiated. <

J

.< _ . l We look forward to prompt and favorable consideration '

l of this request for amendment to the exemption previously granted '

I to us.

)

l

. Sincerely, 1

f}l A  % -

• l CJS/en .~

o

, I l

e '-

, n m_"

l

._ 1 ,

. e 8 A - -

?

l .

l

, i e ' *

,.g .,

., , ,m. .* ~ . , ' ~

k l

• n ,h, "1

. ',2 4 e ,*3 * ; } s' -

^

', , , f .

• ? ,

, , ' N-

' 'a A g ,1 s.;, -

,. ; ,~ -

.s; e ~

~

e  %' j ' :.

__ .~. . .w a.- - . -

. - . .