ML20115A662
| ML20115A662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1964 |
| From: | Conner T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210150024 | |
| Download: ML20115A662 (5) | |
Text
.
. _ =.
i 00CKff NUMDER 2
,A00 & UTIL, FAC. 30 2l{
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATVMIC ENERGY 00DeftS810N D CKETED U
in the Matter of
)
6 NOV 519f>4* 3
)
Docket Mo. 5D=219 we,' yc O
JE18EY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT
)
y 1
COMPANY
)
eto FROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCIESIONS OF TAW IG SUEMITIID BT THE ATOMIC ENERGY 00>9CSSIDN REGULA!ORY STAFF 1
The staff has reviewed the " Applicant's Proposed Findings and Decision" and the accompanying letter, dated October 26, 1964, and has concluded that, except as noted below, no changes need be made. Although the Appiicant's proposed findings provide more detail on certain aspects of the proceeding than perhaps necessary or desirable for hearings before atomic safety and l
licensing boards, the Staff believes that they identify all significant safety questions and demonstrate how such questions will be satisfactorily resolved.
However, the Staff recoussends the following changes to clarify certain suggested findings and in some instances to reflect the Staff's position.
In instances where only clarifying changes are proposed, the charge is underlined.
1 A new paragraph 4A should be added:
(
" Pursuant to the notice given, the hearing was held in Toms River, l
New Jersey, on October 14-16, 1964 Eighteen witnesses were presented by the applicant and its contractors. Their technical evidence was presented in panel form, with one witness assuming the responsibility for the entire presentation with such assistance from the other panel witnesses when he selected. Other witnesses l'
9210150024 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST l
2-for Jersey Central presented the statements of management responsibility and evidence to demonstrate the Applicant's financial qualifications. The Staff presented a panel of four witnesses, who testified concerning the technical aspects of the application utilizing the same panel presentation -
technique. In addition, the Staff presented the testimony of a witness from the Office of the Controller of the A20, who testified as to the financial qualifications of the Applic ant".
2.
The first sentence of paragraph 30 should be revised to read as l
follows:
"The plant is sLmilar to other boiling water plants, such as Dresden, Big Rock Point, Bumboldt Bay and the SENN plant in Italy' '.'
l 3.
The proposed findings should reflect the Staff's position with respect l
to the protection system governing the recirculation flow rates in a new paragraph 57A to read as follows:
"The staff stated at the hearing that all operating conditions involving power-to-flow relationships should j
be such that burnout and fuel melting would not occur l
should the reactor power be inadvertently raised to the scram set point. The staff further states that in ite I
view, the use of procedural controle alone, would not be sufficient.Ctr. 430 Emb, No, 3, Page 31),"
. ~ - -. - -
~
v.-
+ ~
s.
1.
. 8 4
To reflect the staff's position concerning control rod worths, 3
en additional sentence should be added at the end of paragraph 61:
"The staff stated that the criteria regarding reactivity control outlined by the applicant are acceptable, except that a finite shutdown margin with the highest worth rod withdrawn from the core should be established as an operating limitation."
5.
Paragraph 63 should be clarified to read as follows:
"In addition to the normal procedural control to satisfy tho' limit on control rod worth, an interlock device, such as the rod worth minimizer referred to in the following paragraph, is to be supplied in the Oyster Crwek Plant to reduce further the probability of encountering rod worths exceeding 2.5% delta k/k."
l 6
To amphasize that a postulated accident is involved and to correct an error in the reference, paragraph 67 should be tevised to read as follows:
"For the postulated accident wherein the core spray systau does not function and 100% of the fuel would melt, which could, in turn, result in 23% of the zirconium reacting with wate:,...(Exh No. 2, Page 66)."
7 The second sentence of parsgraph 73 should be made more specific and revised to read at follows:
"For this reactor the applicant states that less than one
, percent of the fuel sorroachee this miniansa burnout ratio (Tr. 484-483)."
G 4
4
4 l
i 1 -
T 8.
In order to present a comprehensive picture, the following seatsaces l
should be added at the end of parsgraph 74:
]
"rbis consideration is important in evaluating the thermal characteristics of boiling water reactors.' Froa the stand-potut of operating ibnitations and need for interlocks 1
~
discussed above, however, it should be noted that the signifia cance of this consideration is affected by the variable flow node of operation planned for this facility."
i 9.
It is possible to interpret the second sentence of parag:apu 76 as i
suggesting that in its Hazards Analysis, the Staff considered " cumulative errors in both the calculation and experimental determination of what the burnout ratio would be" for this particular reactor.
In order to avoid rach misinterpretation, this sentence should be deleted and the following sub-stituted in lieu thereof:
i "At the hearing the staff testified that in determining burnout ratios for other boiling water reactors, Dre den and Big Rock Point, it took into account eumulative errore in both the calculation and determination of what the i
burnout ratio should be.
The staff testified that the burnout ratio correlation of APED 3892 can be espected to apply to the Oyster Creek facility and that, if so, the burnout correlation of 1.5 vould be acceptable. The staff emphasized, however, that a higher minism:n burnout rette vould be impesed, if found nosessary, after evalusties of the fiwal design (TE. 374-378)."
f
J 4
10 Paragraph 82 should be stated specifically in terms of Part 20 limitations and should be revised to read as followes i
" Stack gs, emission rates are expected to be far belov the maxious permissible concentrations which mar
- e released under the provisions of Part 20, Title 10, code of Federal RegulatAons (Tr. 84A, Par, 64; Rah. No. 2, i
i Page 35)."
- 11. The second line of paragraph 106 of the proposed findings should read as follows:
"..,c9nstitutes findings and conclusions, and upon all of t
the ed dence, cententions..."
I 12 Subsect :4 (c) of the find.ngs in 31 of paragraph 106 presently reflects the applicant's position expressed in paragraphs 79-80 of it.-
1 proposed findings that programs which might be characterized as "research and development" will be conducted, although it stresses that the program i
should not necessarily be characterized as "research and. development".
Bowever, to make the finding specific, the staff believes that the qualify.
ing phrase "if any" should be deleted from this subsection.
- 13. In the first line of I 2 of paragraph 106, "his" should be changed to "its".
14 In the construction permit, the signature line should be changed l
from "Df.reet.or of Regulation" to " Director, Division of Reactor Licensing".
Respectfully submitted, 1
Trey B. Conner, Jr.
Trial Counsel Dated November 4,1964 AEC Regulatory Staff
.