ML20125A527
| ML20125A527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1970 |
| From: | Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125A522 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212080382 | |
| Download: ML20125A527 (50) | |
Text
4 ,e
, ( -
.w UNITED STATES OF AMEltICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION in the Matter of )
)
Northern States Power Company ) Docket No. 50-263
)
(Monticcllo Nuclear Generating Plant, )
Unit 1) )
ORDER PROVIDING POlt PitElf EAltING CONFEltENCE, REC'?ENED llEAllING, AND llELATEE ANNOUNCEMl:NT In behalf of the board, the chairman OltDERS:
A.
That a prehearing conference shall be held in the United States Federal Courthouse, 316 North Itobert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, at Courtroom 4 (7th floor) on Tuesday, August 4,1970, at 10:00 a.m.
B.
That the hearing shall reopen at the same place beginning Wednesday, August 5,1970, at 9:00 a. m. i C.
That this order reopening the hearing and providing for a prehearing conference shall be published promptly.in the Federal Register and shall be the subject of a public annour. cement by the Commission's Division of Public Information.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-e 9212080382 700717 PDR i
' I A
ADOCK 05000263 PDR g,
,-)
y p
Valentine IL Deale,'Chalraisii h _
- ;} ( d*"
YYI / *
,5
\ i 4:ITED STATEG OF /yIRICA
, [
ATOMIC 12iERGY C01EISSION fy In the lhtter of 1 A,l NORTIEIUI STATD3 IG'ER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-263 (Monticello iluclear Generatimg )
r3 ant Unit 1) )
CDtTIFICATE OF CERVICL I hereby certify that copics of (1) ORDER AND ID!OP/JiDUll PERTADTING TO DIGCOVERY AND DFJDTITION OF CONTENTIONS AND SCHEDULING OF FRDIMED;0 CONTRENCE AND BEOTEND 0 0F HEARD:0 tmd (2) OPJER PROVIDING FOR ITIEARD;0 CONFERD;CE, EEOPEED IE/JtD;0, /dTD REIATED /J NottiCD' INT, both dated July 17, 1970 in the captioned natter haic Leen cerved on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first claco or air mail, thio 17th day of July 1970:
Vulentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Thoman F. Encelhardt, Eaq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Regulatory Staff Counsel 1031 Connecticut Avenue, H. W. U. S. Atomic Energy Cc=mionion Suite 5014 Wachington, D. C. 23515 4 Vachington, D. C. 2C036 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Janen P. Glencon, Esq., Alternate Shaw, Pittman, Potts, TroVbridge i Chair wl & !!adden litomic Safety and Licensing Eoard 910 Seventeenth Street Donahue, Etimantraut & Gleason Washington, D. C. 20006, N. W.
11125 Rockville Pike Hochv1110, Maryland 50852 Donald E. Nelson. Enn : , '.'it.,e President 4 General Counsel S Dr. John C. Geyer, Chairman Northern Staten Pover Company -
Department of Geography and Ilh l Nicollet Mall Environmental Engineering Minneapolis, Minnecota 55401 The Johns Hopkinc University ,
baltimore,!bryland 21218 Mr. D. F. McElroy, Vice President-Engineerin6 Dr. Eugene Orculing Northern Stateo Power Company l
Professor of Ihysico Llh Nicollet MsL1 Dake University Minneapolis, Minnecota 551+01 Durhca, North Carol 1na 27706 Dr. R. N. Earr, Secretary and Dr. Rolf Elincoen Executive Officer t
Departuent of Civil Engineering State Department of !!ccith Str.nford University Univeroity Campus Stanford, California 94305 Minneapolio, Minnesota 55440 .
(
3
t O O .
pace 2 50-P63 Chief, Industrin1 Comiuion Lev. Paul !!. Engctrom, President 137 State Office Building Minnecotn Envirorcental Control Et. Paul, Jtilmecota 55101 Citizenc Accociation F6 Enct Exchtmgo Dtreet cere.iccioner of Concervation Et. l'aul, Minnecota 55101 Stnte of Minnecotn Departrent of Concervation- Willica J . llennecoy, Er,q.
St. Paul, Mitmecota 55101 Ec11 and l'ennercy 55 Sherburne Avenue Honornble !!nrold E. kVander St. Paul, Minnenota 55103 Governor, State of Minnecotu Ct. Inul, Minnesota 55101 Kr. Michael Donahue R . it . 3 lionorable L. J. Drethel, Chairman Elk Idver, Minnecota 55330 Wrfcht County bearn of Comincionerc Euffalo, Minner,ota 55313 Menars. Kenneth D:ucen, 7heodore Pepin and George Lurnett G. R. cert Johnnon, Ecq. Departicent of Phynico 3pecial Anointant Attorney Genern1 Univeroity of Minnecota Stato of Minnecotn Minneapolio, Minnecotn 55h55 ,
717 Delaware Street, S. E.
Minnenpolio, Minnesotu 55440 Mr. John P. Badalich, Executive Director State of Minnecotn Pol.lution Control Agency 717 Delavarc Street, S. E.
- Minnenpolin, Minnesotn 55440 Informatien copice of ite::: (2) on2y cent to:
Mr. John Pecora, President l's. Leonard W. kvine, Chairnan legiclative Comittec Tradec and labor Accently Clear Air-Clear Unter Unlit:ited Concervation Comittec 335 Tenth Avenue North l W7 Worcester llopkinc, Minnecota 553h3 Ot. Paul, Minnnco n 55116 l
Pz. Donald W. Andrevo, Chairnan Mrc. Mary Ernceutli Minnesota Environmental Defense Water P.ccourcen Chairman Council Icague of Women Votern of 1515 8th Avenue North Minnesotn St. Cloud, Minnesotn 56 331 555 Watache Ct. Faul, Minnesotn 55101 l
i l
l l
i l
l
..m
~ _ ,,
pace 3 50-263 l'r. John Rote, Vice Precident
. honort3 le Walter F. Mondnic Minnecota Conocrvation lederatior. United Statec Senate h313 Phndy Oak Rond .achincton, D. C. E0510
);op;; ins ,1'.innenote $$;
licnornble Joceph E. Earth Dr. Det.n E. Abrt]n eon, Pre cident 1! cute of heprecentntiven Minnenotn Co;xniti ec for ihvironrental Unthington, D. C. 2351')
Infomation P. O. Box 34000 Kr. E. D.14ctinnon 151vercity Station Leeretary-Treenurer Minnenpolic, Minnesote 55hlh Ot. Paul Trados and Lotor Ancembly Mr. Warren Rocke 1991 Havthorne Avenue Ecot Concenation Chtirem .;t. Pnul, Minnecotn 55102 Dierra Club,1: orth Star Chapter 1:ra. Eucene C. Buch 33h5 horth Tre 1913 Ecuth 7th Street Mirmenpolio, liinnesotn 55h22 Ctillwater, !!innecotu 55082 ;
Dr. Denn E. Abrahrr.non Mrn. John Wesler, Secretary 1092 25th Avenue, S. E. fourth Dietrict, Democratic-Minnetpolic, Minnesota 55hlh Farmer-Labor Party 1510 Grand Avenue "r.
. George McPartlin, Chairmti Et. Peul, !!1nncoote 55105 Cly Planning Lonra of St. Pcul 2010 Carcree Buildinc l'r. liolph Ackermnn Ut. Priul, Minnecotn 55101 ConcultincEncineer 1250 Chermnn Avenue l'.rc. Celcote M. Colron Mndicon, Vinconsin 53703 Et, 1, Box 23 C Cedar, l'innecotn 55011 Honorable Ancher fielcen ilouce of Leprecentativen Mrs. Joacph Unxvciler achington,
.. D. C. 00515 Rt.1, Box 27 Albertville, Minnecota $5331 Mrc. Paul Devin P. O box 235 1:enneth J. Fit patrick, Esq. Eagle Bend, Minnesotn 56hh6 Accictant Corporntion Coimoc1 City of St. Paul Corporation Councel !!onorable Carl Hordberg City Hall Clerk, Urit,ht County St. Ptol, Minnecotn 5510? Courthouce l'uffalo, Minnecota 55313 Minnenpolin Public Library Divircemental Recource Center 1222 S. E.1.th Street Minneapolic, Minnesotn 5541h Attention: Mr. Georce Bloom Y Cp . { *1YdAY Office of the Secretary
".r. 1ncelhardt
"" . Yore S. Linnt E . Srd th
-1
._ . . . .- - - . . - . . . .. - ~. -
o . .. , ,
'y 4*
'A ,
UHTTED STATES OF /MERICA ATOMIC ENERGY ColoISSION 2n the Matter of 1;C>RTHERH STATES P0h'ER COMPANY Docket No, 50-263 ;
Monticello Nuclear Concrating Plant, Unit 1 APPLICA1T'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 01' FA07 AND CONCLUSIONS O ? LtW s IN THE FORM OF A PI OPOSED INITIAL DECISIO:: ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF A PROVISIONAL OPER/tTJUG LICE!;SE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
- 1. On August 1, 1966, Northern States Power Company
( Applicant) filed with the Atomic Energy Corrniccion (AEC or Commission) an application for a licence to construct and !
operate the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant having e boil-inc water nuclear reactor designed to operate at power levels of up to 1670 megawatts thermal. Following a review of the Auguat 1,1966, application, including eight amenaments thereto, by the Co:miccion's regulatory staff (staff) and the Advisory Co:=ittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), a public hearing was held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to consider
.whether a provicional construction permit should be issued by the Commission. There were no intervenors and the hearing was an unecntected proceeding. Purcu tnt to an order by that Board Jn it. Initial Lecicier daud J we 19, 1%7, the Cc= mission
[,i
,. , ~ . . _ . .
_ , . _ . . . , 4. - ,
-t :
4 '
.l Innued a provis.1onal-construction pernit authorizing the con-struction of the Mcnticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1,.
on the Micais.:1ppi River in Wright County, Minnecota. Appli-cant proceedeI to conrtruct the plant. ] >
- 2. On Ecvember 7, 1968, Applicant cubmitted Amend-ment No. 9 to the application which superceded in their entirety '
the application for a conctruction permit and the previous:
l eight amendments. Amendment No. 9 requested a license to operate the p.Lant at its rated power level of 1670 megawatts t
thermal and included the Applicant's Final Safety Analysis [
Report (FSAR). This was,thereafter supplemented by' Amendments- .
10 through 28 to the application. Amendment 28 to the applica-- ]
tion dated July 21, 1970 requested extension oflthe construc-:
tion permit to February 1, 1971,and by order dated July 31,
- 1970 the staff granted cuch extension. "
- 3. Following review by the staff and'the ACRS .of i the updated application-for an operating licence, the Commis-clon, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act)=,
and 1ts own regulations, announced by publication in the Federal -
Recister.on March 11,-1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 4344), that a"public .
hearing would be held before this_ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to consider whether a provicional operating license.
chould be issued to: Applicant. The published Notice of Hearing- ,
cpecified coven iscuec for thic Board to consider at the hearing-
- 2. -
. -.m.__ .
( a ts . .
jn arriving at itu determination.
W
.~_
~/
] 'i%o Corad u cion ' : rm 1c e of hearing publiched on Narch -11, .
3(f/0, at 35 Ped. i:'r. h 3h4, cpecif:.cd the _ following--issuet to be consider i u :10 hecring:
- 1. Whether the apollcnnt hns cubmf.tted to the Ccmmission all technjes' inftraaticn requl. red by Provicional Con-atruction Per:..it Jo. CFPR-31, the Act, and the, rules antl' rcCulations of the Comiccion to complete the applica- -
tion for the provisional operating license;
- 2. Whether conctruction of Unit 1 has proceeded and there in reasonable accurnnce that it will be completed, in .
conformity with Provisional Construction Permit l'o . CPPR-3) the application, as amended, the provi-sions of the Act and the rules and regulations 'of' the
, Commission; ;
3 Whether there ic reasonabic ascurance (1) that the activities authoriced by the provisional operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and cafety of the public, and (ii-) that such activitic; will be conducted in compliance with ruloc and regulations of the Commission; -
- 4. Whether the applicant in technically and financially l qualified to enc; ace .in the activities authorized by the provirionni operating license in accordance with- ,
the rules and reCulatdonc of the Commiccion; S. Whether the applicant has furnished to the Commission proof of financial protection in accordance with-10 CFR Part 140,, " Financial Protection Requirements _and: -
Indemnity Agreemento", of the Commission'c regulations;
- 6. Whether there is rearonable assurance that Unit 1 will- f
~
be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel within 90 days from the date of issuance of the provisional operating licence; and
'( . Whether incuance of the provisional operating license under the terms and conditions proposed will be inimical to the ccir. mon defense and security or to-the health and safety of the public.
W
y
- 4. The Notice of Hearing set the time and place of the hearing and provided for a prehearing conference. It also explained how interested persons could petition for leave to intervene in the proceedings as parties and how persons wishing to express th31r views at the hearing could do so without becoming inte evening parties.
5 As scheduled in the Motice of Hearing, this Board _
held a prehearing conference on April 7,1970, at Buffalo, Minnesota. T.ie public hearing also had been scheduled for Buff alo, but %'as held in the United States Federal Courthouse in St. Paul in respcnse to requests of, and to facilitate attendance at the hearing by, interested citizens in the Twin
~/
2 Public hearings were held on April 28 - May 1, Cities area.
19'lo, June 15 - June 16, 1970, and August 5 - August 7, 1970.
- 6. This is a contested proceeding within the meaning of section 2.4(n) of the Cornission's Rules of Practice. The _
parties to this proceeding are Applicant, the staff, and the following three intervonors from whom petitions for leave to 3/
intervene were received by this Board, and granted:
2/ Board order, /spril 8, 1970, Tr. p. 208.
3/ A petition for leave to intervene filed by Mr. John Pegors on behalf of Clean Air-Clean Water Unlir.ited was denied by this Board for failing to state hic contentions in reason-ably specific detail as required by section 2.714(a) of the Corrission's Rules of Practice. The organization was crsnted the right to make a limited appearance. Tr. p. 209
_ 1, .
-Q W. '
- a. Minnecota Environmental Control C' itizens' ,
Association-(MECCA);
- b. Mr. Michael Donahue, a resident of Elk 1 4
River, Minnesota (Dcnahue);~/ and i
- c. Messrs. Kenneth Dzugan, Theodore'Pepin, !
and George Burnett, graduate students at the University .of Minnesota (Deugan).
7 Mr. John P. Badalich appeared pursuant to section 2.715(c) of the Commiccion'c Rules of Practice to make an
~
unsworn statement on behalf of-the Minnesota Pollution Control-Agency. Pursuant to section 2 715(a) of the Rules of Practice,= ;
limited appearances were granted by this Board to allow presenta-6 tion of unsworn statements by the City of St. Paul ~/ and'by cloven individuals on their own behalf and on behalf of organiza-- '
tions they represented. ,
CERTIFICATION OF-QUESTIO"S TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND-LICE!! SING APPEAL BOARD -t
~i
- 8. By letter dated Apr11 20, 1970, addressed lto this' Board, D:ugan requested that '
t' 3/ Prior to the second phase of~ hearings and by telegram dated- >
l June 14,;1970, Mr. Donahue withdrew as a party?to- the-pro-cceding.
S/ Tr. pp. 333-35 f
6/ Tr. pp.-353-61.
. 2/ Tr. pp. 335-52, 362-92, 467 269 .
1
_ _ . _ _ _~ - _ _ _ _ . _ . _. .. _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . -
4 ,
. 3
- a. Applicant's records of the corrective i
action and disposit$on of nonconformance in materials at ventors' shops, i
- b. Applicant's records of_the base.line ,
inspection, and I
- c. all AEC onsite inspection reports j
be made available to them. Thereafter , and prior t'o the commence-:
ment of the public hearing on April 2E, 1970,-Applicant made nyallabic to Dzugan Applicant'c records which had been-_requestod. '
The AEC inspection reports were exclusively in the. possession
- of the staff.
Intervenor MECCA, by. letter of-April 21, 1970, 9 .
]
requested this Board to subpoena the AEC's " original inspection .
documents of the construction and quality-assurance of the plant".-
The Board,'on April 24, 1970, issued a subpoena duces tecum.to AEC'c Director _of Regulation directing the-production of "the original reports, or_couplete_ copies thereof, of.theTinspections
~
made by the Division of Compliance" in connection with: the Monticello Nuclear. Generating Plant, Unit 1. On June 1, 1970,; ,
the otaff transmitted to this Board and tho' parties the sub-poonned inspection. reports with:the following'four categories of information deleted:
Category 1 - the names of persons, other than- 4 AEC personnel, who provided informa .
tion during the inspections; ;
Category 2 - references to AEC. internal memoranda,.
- .- - .- . . . . .. - - - . - - - - - - . ~ . ~ . - . - - - . - - . . - ,
. , i t
e , t i
instructions, including inspection !
i.
techniques, and meetings; !
i
-Category 3 - referencec to other identified- !
facilities; ;
Category 4 - infor:r.ation of a proprietary nature. . .
MECCA objectoil to the deletions in all four categorios "with the !
posnible exception" of the proprietary'information category.
Dzucan objectod to any deletions from the inspection reports, i 10 On July 6, 1970 this Board certified-to' the Atomf.c x
Garcty and Licensing Appeal Board the fol3owing two questions: !
Question 1 "In the present matter, is the board entitled to make its own judgment as to the propriety of the :
Director of Regulation's deletions in the subpoenaed. inspection reports?" '
Question 2 "On the assumption.of an affirmative answer to question-1, where does the greater merit lie as between the >
, r Director-of Regulation's-position with respect to-the deletions and-a the board's position?" i In a Commentary accompanying the questions-this Board described the character of.the deletions. The category 1-deletions '
"portain to_the names-and titles or positions of persons other than'!
AEC personnel who provided'information during the AEC: inspections".-
- h. 2 u .h? de'6tions may.not be proper in the Board's view, no ,
subotantive information was-incluceu in the category 1 deletions, t
- 7 y -
j c= -;
i- i i i
- 11. The category 2 deletione, thir Boara noted, re-sulted in cix typec of deletions:
Type (a) " Mere reference to a fact that 'a meeting - [
i wac held with minimr.1 information, if any, about titre and location of meeting, ,
I ito attendeec, and purpore or cubject of meeting."
Type (b) "Komenclature of AEC inspection category applicable to the incpect3cn covered by a report or referred to therein."
l Type (c) " Mere' reference to a report, memorandum, ,
. or letter with no_more than a notation of the subject matter, date, author, and -
E addressee."
Type (d) " Actual report of a meeting -of AEC and-non-AEC personnel concerned'with par-
-[
ticular problems _ relating; to plant con--- '
atruction."
Type (e) "Eare-references to internal inctructiona{
covering. inspection procedures."
Type (f)
" Indications of what items will be n sub- -
ject to_-review in one AEC inspection-
--undertaking and of_what' items had been the subject of review-in another one.="-
Typec (a), (b_),_(c) and (c),this Board maintained in its Com-. ,
& ntary,are mere references to materials and-not the materials: :
Types (d) and (f) contain suberantive information-
~
tnenceives.
- f w . - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - . . -- .:
. ,__ - _ 4 .._ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -.. _ __ _ _ . - . - . - _ . _
r t
-l Or uh!ch ru ht te have been made Lvail:<b3e in thl: proceeding in' I the view of ttd r JRiard 01though thir Ioari acknowledges the . l 1
"vn3ddity of -naintaining in confidenec data regnrding specini..
.inepecticn planc end proceduret." Thjr Eonrd notes too that Typen (d) and (f) do not include descriptions of AEC inspection i proceduren; nor do they cont 91n AEC 1rtpection manuals. '
i
- 12. The category 3 deletione, this Ecard observed in Str Commentary, " amount to an indiceriminate elimination of references to any nuclear pcuer plant facility other than the .
applicant'n". The cieletions, while improper in the'30ard's .
view, contain no details of inspection procedures or AEC inspec- ,
tion mnnuals, although they dt, in a-few inctances contain nubstantive dato pertaining to other facilities, i
- 3 3. Thin Loard alto noted that the category 4 dele-t$onr Included proprietEry ir.formaticn cf certain of lipplicant's ,
contrae1orn and venden . Tney centain-no 6etaile'of_AEC inspec-tion procedurce. Appliennt twice offered to make-the informa- ~
-i tien availabic to intcrvencM under conditions which would not .
limit their crece-enal. nation privilegec- but which would protect a
tne value of the proprietbry information to the. owners thereof.
On both cocaciens the intervenore rejected ~ Applicant's offers.
e
- 14. The;deleticna from the incpection reporte present,
~ 1n this Board's-judgment, issues of-general principle,.as dis-curred in thin Boari's certifientien to the Atomic Safety and '
id .
...nc Ippel Ecard. Tnc teleticns dia not, hctiever,. prevent the developac;nt of. an adequate- reccrd to support the findings made.
_g_-
y, e o. , y _.o....-.,.....w'
-u..~r.-.--.,-,..-... . . - w -- .w m m-m ,, -w 4..w ,,.#s-, -,,.,r~ r,
. . - - - - _ . _ _ _ . - . _ -- _ _ _ - - =- - - -
T
. 4 9
herein. At ro time hfter the availnbflity of_the inopcotion reporta, with the deletions, waa there any chowing-of the rea -
nonablenesa, neea or necessity of the discovery ecught and' denied by the deletions in the particular context of this pro-4 ceeding.
1 i
15 While thic Board observe d - that an evaluation of l- the AEC inrpection effort might be aff ected by the unavailability -
to the partien of AEC ineptetion manutlt., the Board notes that the AEC inepectorr who perfornec the $nspectionc and--who wrote the reportn were available for crocc-cxamination throughout the proceeding by .the parties and by thie Board-and that no
[ , requent for diccovery~of cuch inspection manuals was made by -
any party to the prcceeding.
16 In any event, this Initial Decicion pursuant.to
' 10 CFR Section 50.57(e) of the Commirej on'a -regulatione is sub-:
ject to review by the Atomic Safety-and Licenoing, Appeal Board before it becomes 8 finn 3 deciaion of the Commiesion and the Appeal Board wil1 have an opportunity to consider the adequacy of the record'in light of the deletions in the inspection re-porte determined by the Director of Regulation and'which are the.
- subject of this Board's Certification of Question:: to - the Appeal._ .-
Boevd.
MOTION FOR INTERIM AUTHORITY TO LOAD FJEL AND CONDUCT LOW POWER.STARTUP TESTING
- 17. - On April'12, 1970, prior to the-commencement of the public hearing, Applicant moved thir Sosrd to order the
.10 -
q
i
't incma;ce of an interim provicional operat3ng Jicence authorizing ,
initial. fuel i.onding and low pcwer startup 'tecting at power f leveln up to a maximum of five megawatta chermal.- That motion war denied by thic Board on May 1, because, in thir Board'c view, !
t the record waa not at that time cufficiently complete to allow i concideration of the nececcary findingc to cupport such an order.
Applicant renewed its n 7 tion for a fuel louding and low power _
tunting liconte at the cecond phase of hearings on June 17,-
when the record was cubctantially more complete than it had- '
been on May 1. The Applicant,-the ctaff and the intervenors' '
were permitted to cubmit proposed findingc and~ conclusions'with- -
renpect to a low power licence. Findings were received from .'
App 3icant, the staff and Dnucan. MECCA did not file any cuch.
propoued findingc and conclusions.- The Board's disposition of ,
i Applicant'c motion is concidered in its. Order and Initial Decialon dated , in thic proceeding.
CO E::23 OF APPLICATION /J;D- >
FICORD OF PROCEEDE;G
- 18. The application acid the record of the proceeding contain much detailed information about the plant, including i-
- data and information about the-site and the basis of its cuitability, the. design aid construction of theLplant, quality -
j 1
accurance and quality control; programs, engineered-safeguards,_ +
L p
decica featurec not-fully developed and evaluated at the time l: con eruction was authoriced, emergency procedures, proposed l
t
' 02 cnoc$ficatiena governing cperation cf,the plant, the r 11 -
- .
- . ...:- -.- ~ " " ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~
4 y .
Applicant'a technical and financial qt.aJifications, and the plant 'n bearing upon the common defence and cecurity. At the time the construction permit- was '.scued for the plant a number of design features were identified by the staff-and the ACT;S as areas requiring furth(r.information to be developed and cubmitted. Thece areas, relating to flood protection, effluent control during p( riods of minimum river flow, reismic design, tornado protectjon, reactor vousel-stress.
ann]ycic, icolation valve tetting, anc oncite emergency-power 5 cupply, have all been included in App]icant a FSAR and the utaff han concluded that Applicant hat submitted all technical 8/ .
information required. ~
- 19. Applicant't tentimony on direct examination was primarily in the form of documentary evidence. These documents included a document dated March 19, 1970, entitled, " Applicant 's Sumnry of the Applientien for the' Previsional Operating License
~
for the Monticello Huclear Generating Plant No. 1, " ( Applicant 's Summary) and a ' document dated March 26, 1970, enti tled, . "Finan-cini Qualifications of Northern Statec Power Company --~ Testimony of G. F. Johnson." Most of the staff's direct testimony was also-documentary, consisting of a document dated March 18,L1970, en-titled, " Safety _ Evaluation by .the Division of Reactor Licensing" (Staff Safety Evaluation) and Supplement No. 1 thereto dated
-8/
Applicant's Summsry, pp. 21-22; Staff Safety--Evaluation,
~
_ p. 37; Tr. pp. 464-466, L69-476.
a
, . . - . . . . , ~ -._ ~.,__ _ . .. . _ ._.._.,_... . .._..m . _ _ . . . _ _ , _ . _ _ . . . . . , , . ~ . - , _ _ . . _ . . - . - . -
___-____=-_.-_:__--_---_---.
.j L
s .
i 1
Marc'h 30, 1973. These documents were supplemented by oral I
-testimony to include consideration of Amendments 26 and 27 f
and Applicant's emergency plan, and tc_ reflect the ongoing l i
staff inspections of the construction of the plant. The j ctaff and Applicant alco offered in evidence a document en- !
i titled, " Record for Hearing -- Correspondence ", and tne =
documento refarenced therein3 for the' purpose of including
{
in the hearin; record the record of the application pursuant to nection 2.743(g) of the Commincion's rules of-evidence.
In addition A plicant
? and the staff presented evidence under crosc-examination by the intervenors, by-oral redirect and --
I rebuttal evidence, and in response to questions asked by the !
Board. Applicant and the staff also introduced testimony in ~
j[
recponce to questione and commento by limited appearors. Of j the intervenors, KECCA alone presented direct oral evidence and was crocs-examined by Applicant and the staff.
),
20 Purcuant to the National Environmental Policy L Act of 1969 and the Commission's published statement of 10/
~~
general policy for implementation of-that Act, the Commis- l sion has'iccued a detailed statement on the environmental con-1_1/
siderationc involved in the Monticello Plant. l
-9/- Public Law 91-190.
JO/ : Appendix D,- 10 CFR Part 50, 35 Fed. Reg. 5463 (April 2, 1970).
13/ Stntement en Envirentental C6nciderations Relating to ]
l P; epomd the @er ;tjNuclear
-Monticello (. n by ::orthern Generating States -Power Plant (Unit'1 - Cc:m)any
, April of l 24, 1970 !
1 i
il 1
f i
The Iannt Pitq -
- 21. The cite of tho Monticello h'uclear Generating ,
I l'lont, Unit 1, concists of 1325 acreu loonted partially in ,
Sherburne County (on the east bank of the Missiccippi River)
- ano partially in Wright County (on the weet bank of the River). I The p3nnt ic . Located in Wright County. Tne site in about 22' >
milec coutheaat of St. Cloud (1960 population 33,815) and 30 l
milen northwe2t of Minne?polic. The nearest residence is off-cite, approxinately 2750 foot from the plant. The area sur- l rounding the alte io prirarily agricultural. A low population !
aone with a radiuc of one $11e includes a population of about '
12/
~~
25 The minimum exclusion cone radius is 1600 feet. The plant design takes into account meteorolo6ical, hydrological, ground water, and voil conditions, au well as the poccibility 13/
of credible earthquakec, wind storms, ~ tornadoes, and floods.
Featuros of the Finnt ,
l .
- 22. The nuclear steam supply cyctem is a General l Electric boiling water reactor design which in identical in most features to Commontealth Edison Company's Dresden Unit 2, recently licenced by AEC for operation, and is cimilar'to-other 14/
operating boiling water reactors. ~ 1he reactor le a' single'-
cycle, forced circulation, boiling water reactor producing - steam 12f Applicant's Summary, p. 3; Staff Safety. Evaluation, p. 5. _
11/ Applicant's Summary, pp.L3-6;-Staff Safety Evaluation, i pp.'5-9 l'i/ Applicant 'a L:=2ry, . p. 7; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.11. .
P
, , _ . . _ . - _ _ _ ._=_a.. _ _ , _ , _ . , , - _ _ , _ . _ _ . . . _ . ,_.__,..._a.,__,._..._2 ,
i 1
y . ,
1 for direct una in the steam turbine. The reactor will be' fueled I
with clightly enriched uranium dioxide pellote realed in Zircaloy.
fuel rod:. . Henct3vity control is presided by movable. control rode and vari ible recirculction flow. The primary contain - !
r;,ent cyctem, mncicting of a steel drywell and a nteel pressure nuppreccion c'icmber, it coelgned to accommodate the prescures ,
ano temperr.tu en whj ch would recult from, or occur subcequent to, a failure equivalent to n double-ended, circumferential rupture of a cactor coolant recirculation tyrton line reculting in the loen o.' reactor water at the maximum rate. The primary surety functions of the secondary containment, conciating of the reactor build.'.ng and the c andby gas trcctment cyctem, are to i min $mize ground IcVel releace of airborne radicactive materiale, and to provide for centrolled, filtered, elevated release of the reactor building atmorphere under postulated design beeis accident cond!tienn The reactor building provides accondary containment during periods when the primary containment system ,
is in cervice, and primary centainment during periods when the 10/
~~~
primsry containment la cpen. ;
I l 23. In addition to the primary and recondary contain-ment cyctems, the p1Lnt has a number of safety featurce designed for limiting the concequencee Of accidents,-including the highly unlikely locs-of-coolant accident. The principal cafety features- ,
M/ pp. t PTdienntFs Sum ~,ary, pp. "/-9; Staff Safety-Evaluation, IN h, M/ itpplicunt 's Sum:.ary , pp. 9-12; Staff Safety Evaluation,
- l. pp. 2E-25..
l ,.
, ,. - - - .-.- - . - - . . - ~ , - . . _ . - . . . . . _ . - - . - . . - . - . . - . - ,
l'
.s i
)'
L
))] \
include the e norgency core cooling cystems, the reactor ,
18/
ctandby gac treatment eyntem, ~ a rcactor protection cystem e
dealtned to automatically shutdown thc reacter when pre- !
19/ ;
estub31ched 03fety limitc are reached, ~ and a standby liquid !
control cytte n which provides backup reactivity chutdown capa-b113ty in the unlikcly event that chutdown cannot be accomplished I by control ro jo alt ne .
G/ >
i 24 The reactcr primary cooltnt cyctem includea the reactor preac2re veccel, the two-loop reactor coolant recir-culation cyst:m, and the main steam piping. The water circulating ,
in the primary cyctem in used both to cool the reactor core within the precrure veccel and to produce steam for the production of
_2J1/
electrical power.
25 D ucsn questioned Applicant about the capability to detect a looce object in the core which might interrupt ,
the coolant flow patterne. Applicant testified that the velocities of the coolant at the bottom of the vessel were too elow to carry objects of eignificant size up into ths
))/ Applicant's Summary, pp. 12-14; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 25-28.
28/ Applicant's Summary, pp. 11-12; Staff Safety _ Evaluation, pp. 24-25.
. Jo/ Applicant's Summary, pp. 15-16;. Staff Safety Evaluation,
- p. 28. '
E/ Applicant's Summary, p. 8; Staff Safety' Evaluation, p. 13.
['J/ FEA:i, $4-1.
-LI-
c o re regi c.. . . The testimony indicaten hat cmall '.' postage ctamp uize" pieceu of metal might be carried up into the core, but would cause only local coo:. ant blockage around a specific fuel. rod. Such blockage could conceivably in-terrupt the coolant flow enough to enunc the rod to fail, )
but failure of one or trio rods is of little significance ,
'i in terms of releaae of radioactivity into the primary .
coolant. Applicant cleo noted that calculations and tects .
ahow that the flow through a channel would have to be blocked ,
by 80 or 90 percent to produce fuel clad failure. Should coolant activity exceed specified . limits, the steam line '
t radiation monitors 22 would detect it and cauee the reactor-to shut down. ~ /
4
- 26. To ensure the integrity of reactor systems, in-cluding the primary coolant system, the components are fabri- ,
cated and inspected in accordance with applicable engincering codes and standards which include provisions for detailed quality control measures taken during fabrication.- Testimony '
by Applicant, on 'eross-examina tion, revealed that . each weld of the pressure vessel, for example, was inspected by various neientific methods about 17 times, that the vessel wa.s fabri- "
cated and inepected in such a manner as to be .ccmpletely certi- '
fled and. stamped under the A.S.M.E. code for nuclear vessels, and that Applicant's subequent inspection of the accessible' welds.on the installed vessel yielded no questionable welds. ~~ 23/
- 22/ Tr. pp. 1150-52.
- P3/ Tr. p. 764-77.
$f
.4__.._. _ . ,_ ._. _._ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .;_
m _ .. _ _ m__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . - _ _ -
Liquid Eff)uente 27 Liquid wantes generated by normai operation of the plant are collected and processed thrcuch a radwante system whl ch e
removen radj olctive contaminents by filtration and/or mixed deep-i t .e d i on e x c h a.w,e drnineralization. Rcdioactivity is nico reduced through decay dur;nr ntorat;c in ho3dur tanks. Liquid wactes_wf.th-hirh leve3 a of radioactivity are proce ssed and normally returnod' for reune within the plant. Low leve) radioactivity liquid waste in procynsed, stored, campled, analyzed, diluted,'and periodically releaned into the Miand srippi River under care-fully controlled batch-by-batch conditions to encure.that allou-able concentration limite are not exceeded, even during periodo of extremely low river water level.24/
t
- 28. MECCA and Daugan indicated concern that radioactive s effluents were being discharged upstrean from the drinking water
$nleta of St. Paul an.1 Minneapolis. These are the nearent public :
water intakes, be3nc 33 miler and 37 milea, respectively, from j the plant. Tectimony b:/ Applicant and the staff indicated that-the annual average concenvration of radioactivity in the effluents
- L was not expected to be more than a few' percent of AEC's limits 1
in Part 20 of its regulations and, considering a further dilution .;
l factor experienced during the downstream flow, the radioactive i
M/ Applicant'o' Summary, pp. 18-19,20;-Staff Safety Evaluation,_
pp.-32-37, hl-42; Tr. pn. 470-71. ;
i
_ 13 -
f
t y .
concentration; at the public unter intake would be well-below n))nwnble Part 20 limits.25/ The.consequencen of the worst
- pocajb]e accidental releace from the Jiqudd radwaste storage tanks to the river at the plant site loundary result in a 1
concentrntion of radioactivity lens tran 10 CFR Part 20 limits.26/
! Onaccus Effluents
.I -
- 29. Radioactive gasec genertted durjng normal operation of thn plant are stored to provide rac~1oactive decay- time, filtered, diluted, and finally releas(d through the plant off-3
- ran atack which providen further dilution in the atmosphere. !
Helennen are carefully monitored and controlled to ensure that the radiation done at the theoretical point of highest exposure
! offsj te, i.e. at the nite boundary, w$11 be below-the limits.of.
4-i Part 20 of AEC'n regulations. Expocuren further away from the i- cite boundary will be ntill less.27/ A cont 1nuous monitoring ~
, nyntem automatically terr.inates releaee when preset limits are j reached.28/ .
25/
Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 34-35; Tr. pp. 647-50, 660-62. '
?G/
- Deposition Tr. p. 301; FSAR p. 9-2.7. ;
E/ Tr. p. 659.
3 N/ pplicant's A Summary,.pp._ 18-19,-20; Staff Safety Evaluation pp. 37-42.
2
- . . . . . - . . _ - . - . - = . - - . = . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . - . - . . . . . - . , . . . - . . , . , -
)
30 F.c c t of ti.e caccou ic% ope., cuen c ::rypton-85 which decay into biologically important radioactive daughters decay into radicnct !" > r'a ticulatec dnring the 30-minute hold->p ,
time and t he hir r.-c f!'i c i one;, filterc collect tne radioactive p'a r t i c u i a t e r .ltn a' c'f ^5ency of B.97T. I'ndecayed noble nace. would not to *'
- '. ty the filierc m
.3 are releaned to the atmosphere b.
t '."' c e c:.triL tion to off ui te radiation
?q/
expo: are 1: '.nni<'. J' - . -' Applicant h tc determined that, ---
bac.ed on naturca 1.r;s . ; 0:. c r g, 2 c e ou: effluent in the atmos-phere and the r.eteoralcri .1 an; topetraphict1 characteristics of the cite arc't, 2n ;nn el c/erage atack release rate of 0.48 curien per secona (cl/sec) can be acecmmodated without exceed-
$ ng A'sC : 'a regulat ory done 13 nits in 10 CFIi Part 20. "30/ The staff, using mere c o n c e r c c t ' v e- :_ c n u t p t i o n o , .tould limit the nnnuni average atack re2eace to 0.27 curiec per necond. "91/
The expectec cc m ~ tlon of the e: fluent cacec and the decay J. c h er.e , of eacn r_!!: '
t o.: are c o n.:i G er e u an calculating the _
allouable din.barger to t he a tr.DDphere . "3 ?/
- 31. AI p i l er r.t ' n
.a the ntaff's dose calculations take
$ nt o con iderat ic . * ! entire spectrum of .eteorological con-d i t l e n:. at the plant " t ; e c. n u caceoun effluents can be released even during periods o f t n e a :; c t aaverse ana unstable attonpheric 7;/
COnd3tionC.
- on/
'9 -- %.
2 . pp. ipon -on
. v c s. a c ], .
.b Of
.i:e; i"ni . J ,. . Q_2...
s , n. .e . .r .T.< {,v s _ ci-( :
a t' . ;-
- . o y
..i/ y- t 4 e g n.s )*i .e .
.e - *f 4 .g e. i.i [ p .W 6 L * 'C .
- %/
s
,,r -,- . , .
~
A .
pp. y O U- U . , . Cat-2 Car. . ,.
em =
g I
1 e r
. 6 a .
+- i
- 32. Daugan cross-oxamined Applicant and the staff at ;
- i. i I some length based on a concern that the offsite dosage would !
. increace becalse of a possible buildur of radioactivity over i the years fro n nornal plant releases. Technical testimony _by l 1
I i the app 1dcant thereby e25 cited indicated that accumulation,-
i resulting prir.arily fren deposition of particulate materials- ,
with long hal? lives, constituted a neg31cible contribution to '
i 4
- offsite dose. Technica; testimony by the staff indicated that their calcula; ion did Lace Jnto accourt the accumulation of l l fission products with long half lives. In any event _any such _
t accumulation would be promptly detected by the applicant's !
radiological monitoring program.%/ C t L 33 The Applicant's offsite-dosage calculations are ;
performed using a mathematical model or formula derive'd from-empirical observations. Daugan questioned Applicant about the accuracy of the model used by Applicant in predicting offsite donagen under var 3 eus meteorolot;ical conditions. -Applicant expressed confidence in the model and testified that the model used is an analytical model developed at AEC's Hanford' labor- f atory on the basis of experimental results observed over many years. Applicant explained that an error analysis is performed. ,
atlthe time a model is developed.- An error' analysis is not M Tr. pp. 564-531, 651-672, 781-797.
1 t
1 .
- Y, - 5
.,- .- 7 v.w- .-am-e e +ew w a ,w.4-me,-.e _.r-.w--,ee-,-ee,e,w.,wwe,u-w w.,-tow,_.,,. v-ew-e-,-%+,.e.,,,,,e,mm y,,, op, pw y y,,,ny,w g..m y mee g r + gme , ,-eegey~e w rye "
a P"Pfo ran.a enn jne i very bt'oj ee t I ,} } }b*
- d. t.
4 ; y U c Q u +e. 0 va a0 40, 4
,,O d e j a ng' ". th0 -
7'ho .
t t10 une "' o dt. ]
" God uGDtfen, u evtvv. .3YConcep v
D'e b', , sed yatfyg <
Inoteop g t h e' ; ~,_d he 1 t' )
"Pplicant
- i h o k fung ',
- 'L 1 c " ,
- le r b .,Ph unneces )
p]a s o rr.,gg C v erj 'c 4 ,
c a *,,3,
> the ' h l i c r. . . . .
UD) '
cp-
"" Lor at cps, doc 4 U th u nd c.. n ,
OI C; :
e ,0acure -
,e,.
. "r..P3Jcaf t ,, .
ar ey 'I n ; Op r. ,4 -
. OD
< v a a ' '. . , *47 yon 34 ' ' o!. g*,, ,- ,l e a b . , of l
1 ; o y, , ,. s the
( 1ob ,L a, o,;j UDE 5 Getua3 i
gU e yc~*,l t l
t h ,, ,, PrOfa~,U n,a,,s-, 3 % /
COOnt
) yZuCisn L J e .. :. v
- d. . v ' ' 'c , ' ? %' sechrlc:g.,
a o
D h e a 3 ,.
' - cor.sep, *P ? c j *1'3 C'a t U"IUtfonc the ,
nt toog j a ion 3 t h e-Va rj o u"e
" Oc t o *c "cco c 3cu2at3 D
utn 4 Dethod
.o v "U th0 d V:h i . e p'h o d i'e[Cri nC ch OCO cal ~
C l oc u 3 c~,
ntir3- Cd that thn 'u hv e aica3 V:h3e"s Jnc 13or-<u- c take PPoportiLn
""20 ~ <, 0 n Up tv*1 o *c u io
, UIhto : t l u~',
13 7 a,u ICQ1 altop't,,
3 ~~ ; ..hednu', Comm3 ~_ ion m >~~., ,, b e en v
a o n a,. , NP11 cant tgn ofi n g gmayocu3g Degj 3 7* .,
",va nd u,
~" .
15 3 hadio3cr_JCal pconeO SythC
~ ,,ed g 2e ar'", pO t ec t j o,) In t e',. '
are t ,, , , l un' L< op , . t2P t hkc h, hen 39,, cal "'->Cnir nu ,
. ; 'nc', t a nc
,ho f+*
ectab ica w cypc'c t o e 3n apg o ' , t *n "" , . l u . L4/
m t r:n1ng n N c the raggo,
]~S/ n av' PD- N.
9 49. os ., ,
}]G/ oa' co ,
'i'n * "'I-934 '
,c Pp. v .,, 0. y',
973_g. '
E003-2004, n----~
?
performed on every project because the extremely conservative engineering and modeling assumptions used make it' unnecessary to do so. .The model used by Applicant-hac been verified with the use of met corolocical, off-gas, an.1 dose measurements at the Brookhaven Mational unboratory. During operation'of the plant, the ca:culnted noticic are verified by actual measurement under Applicart's radiation nonitoring program. L
- 34. In any event the Technical-Spec 3fication limit is based on tie staff's more conservative calculational method.
Dzugan asked $f App 31 cant took into account in the dosage cal-culations the effect of the differing chemical properties of the various mclecules which have taken up tritium. ' Applicant i testified that the possible chemical alterations in molecules.
wh$ch incorporate tritium had been considered by the Inter-national Commission on Radiological Protection when it estab-lished the standardo-for tritium uptake -- the effects are negligible and are of no importance in determining the radio-logical significance of tritium.36/ '
Tr. pp. 949-971,_977-984, 1820-22.
b Tr. pp, 971-972, 2003-2004.
--22 -- .;
__ _ _ _ _ _ ._..__..-__.___.__.__m . ___ -. . . _ _ _ _
- 1 I
i!
JMi;nj j a , i a lic u l a.1.1. >
- 35. Xn actorminite the cafety of the reactor deciCn, detailed narety evaluntions and analyces were made by Appli-cent and the ::taff, and revicwed by the ACP.S, to determine the capto111;y of the design to mitigate the consequences of a decign basir accide_it should it occur. 37 ~ / Design- '
banic accidento are the worst possible accidents postulated i
for the reacuor, NV h'ith regard to the calculations of ,
^
j radiation donca which d ght be received at various dictancee j from the plant in' the event of a decign basic accident, MECCA, referring to a 1967 report prepared by the U.S. Public Health 3j]/ ._
Service, contended that Applicant had not evaluated the i consequencen of an accident wherein 100% of the' reactor core ic melted. 11ECCA requested that. an operating licence not be 40/
~~
granted until such an evaluation is made. The evidence, however, indi.catec that the etaff's evaluation and Applicant's 4-evaluation of thc radiological concequencen of a loss or coolant-accident at the plant take into consideration the fission pro-ductc which would recult from-a 100% core meltdown;notwithstanding-the fact that a 100% core meltdown is precluded by theIincoroora- _
tion of highly redundant networks of engineered safeguards-to-31/ Applicant'r Surr.ary, pp. 1-2; . Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 43-!
}8/ 'Tr. pp. 483-35.
10/ Public Ilealth Evaluation,-Monticello Nuc16ar Generating Plant,;
May 10,1967; Tr. - p. 735 y
JLo/_ Tr. pp. 688-59, 697.
t 6
. . ~.-. - - -._. _ - - - - . = _ . . . - . - _ -
i 1
l cool the core in the event of a loss of coolant accident. '
l Those safeguards also thereby assure the integrity of the -l j
containment system for mitigating the release of fission products to the atmosphere. ~~~41Safety / evaluations by Ap-plicant and the staff, introduced into evidence, demonstrate that the doser which cculd result frc.m a design basic acciden':
are well within the Cuideline values of Part 100 of the Com-42/
Such doccm would not be expected
~~
miscion's regulations.
to cause biologicar in.1ury to persont in the vicinity of.the 11/
plant.
Plant Security
- 36. Section 50.1? of the Commission's regulations pro-vides that: ,
"An applicant for a license to construct and operate a-production or utilization-facility, or for an amendment to such licence, _le not required to provide for defign features or.other measurec for
_41/ Tr. pp. pju-39, 041-4(, iciiG-1918, 2000-1.
Applicant's Summary, p. 20; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.140. .'
^
Jg/
Although the accident. doses calculated by Applicantiand the staff were both well within the Part 100 guideline values,:
the staff's calculated doscs were hicher than those-of the-Applicant. Tectimony by both parties' explained that the_ .
calculatione involve the assiencent of many_ parametric:
values related to the size-of the source of; radioactivity,. .
transport __and_ behavior mechanisms of radioactive _ materials, meteorological conditions, and dose :cenversion factors.: In nearly all cases the staff used more conservative para-metric values leading to a higher calculated accident dose.
The staff witnest emphasized _the conservatism of the staff's approach und suggested that Applicant's parametric; values,-
l 1endine to lower calculatec doses were probably the more' '
l-r W tf, d i e . Tr. pp. 420- a, 270 bE3.
L h3/ Tr. pp. 1896-1902.
x ._. . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ...
s .
the spec $fic purpose of against the effects cf (protection a) attacks and destructive acts, including sabotage, directed acninst the fa-1 cility by an enemy of the United-States, whether a foreign government or other person, or (b) use or de-ployment or weapons incident to U.S.
defense aetivities. "
Protection againct poacible inductrial sabotage including the provicica of apprcpriate industrial security measures, in an 7pprop'inte natter for consideration at tr ,perating lLV licence stage. Access to the plant will be E y. u'2rde d m
by a number of fences. Cates in the security fence will be locked when unattended. The locks and keys at the plant site are part of a non-e- ercial keyway system established .
% ne iock manufacturer specifically for Applicant. Protec-tion of ;1 ant facilitie will also be available from local law enre. cement authorities and National Guard personnel,
'en appropr'.e *
. The decign of the plant structures and l equ_pment which are important to the safety of the plant include allouance for the effects ol' floods, tornadoes, and earthquakes. These design measures taken together with the inaccencibility to the reactor vessel and primary system l .'
L piping during operation and the redundant safeguard systems inherently provide a substantial degree of protection against any public safety consecuences of possible industrial sabotage.
The plant eecurity measures make any such sabotage a very low probability c"'nt.
W In tuu .ntter t_ c.terian E. L. Rep., E11259 Fouer 6: Light Company 2 CCH AL.
$ Tr. 1351-1880. fi
n 4
. E: net nency l'Inne ,
37 Applicant has prepared a plan describing-the emerger cy organization and the ~ Arrangements to be effected in the unlikely event of an accident which might-affect the general public. Emergency conmunications have been Installed to provide uninterrupt'ed liaison between on!.ite personnel and offsite support groups and agencies. Applicant has made emergency arrangements with responsible agencien of the State of Minnesota and with appropriate locni officials, and has made emergency-medical arrangements with a local hospital for treatment of contaminated patients.Il/
- 36. Applicant's emergency plan had been submitted -
as a part of the FSAR. Applicant introduced-as an exhibit in these proceedings detailed procedures which supplement the emergency plan and which will become a chapter of the plant operationu n.ac.;y1 In response to questioning by this f30ard., the staff testified that the detailed proce-dvres conformed to the staff-approved emergency plan, rm d , further, that the plan and the procedures _ meet the emergency planning guidelines of the Commission's proposed amendment to-10 CFR Part 50 of its regulations, and meet FSAR 913-44; Applicant's summary, pp. 33-34; staff 46/ Safety Evaluation, pn. 50-51; Tr.pp. 539-50., 551-52, 844 45, 901-904, 129d-1307 I
V
-I y
l 1
1 i
the intent of t d e i l document whic : the ;taff had prepared for the uue of applicante in developing their emergency pinnc. Tne staff tentified that /.pp2 $ cant's emergency plan '.ad been reviewed to determine tht.t its various elements were sufficient to provide reacenable assurance that reasaron can and will be tacen in the event of an energency to adecuately protect the health -
and safety of the public and to pre tent damage to property.
The staff L2 so tectified that the detailed implementc. tion procedures deceribea the assignment of emergency duties of plant personnel ~nc off-site groups, define classes of emergencien and the range of possible accidents, define the action of responsible individualc both within and without Applicant's organization in responding to the emergency and c racuating off-site personnel, provide details for post-a.ccident monitoring of effluents and the environment by,the i.pplicant's ataff and the Minnecota Department of Health, describe the com:nu11 cations network for on-site and off- nite communications, state the rule of local authorities if evacuation becomes necessary, describe the plan for eraffic control, including detour pl an; _.nd includ5 an expanded reentry proc edure uhich 47 specifies the criteria for reentr./ of affected area.s. /
3/
L Tr. pp. 1210-16, 1296-1307.
l
- 2 '( -
t
. - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - ^ ^ - ^ - - - - --^-- ^ ' ^ ^ ^ ~
. - . . . - - . . . - . . ~ . . . - ,.. - -. .... ~ . -. - . , .-
. ' ~ ' i- y g.:. sA*
4' 't Appl $ cant i s ealculated donyn;rosultingsfromJ 39 t
a decign basin accident are well below' the guidelineJ doses ,
~
set forth in 10 CFR Part 100 of AEC' regulations and would-not require evacuation -of any people outaide of, the cxclu-'-
cion area. The exclusion area is t. fenced area within: 1 the reactor site over which Applictat has..' complete control.. .
Even />EC's' more conservative dose ( alculations would not _ ,
predict thi need for more than li:rd ted- evacuation of the low population zone which is an area within a radius one f
mile from the plant. About 25 people. live within a~cne-mile radius _ of the plant. It is inconceivable that an - l accident could-occur which would require evacuation of people'living beyond the low population zone. Evacuation b
plans have been formulated and will be coordinated by the' offices of the Wright County Sheriff the'Sherburne County Sheriff, and the Monticello aren Civil Defense -
Coordinator.h B / -
- 40. Applicant testified that the procedures for testing the- emergency plan had been prepared and the.
emergency plan would be tested prior to . loading of- fuel into the reactor. The e:r.ergency plan testing consists-of five separate testa including postulated airborne M / Tr..pp. 1919-26.
i ,
I rol cms e s , lostulated liquid relcancs., in-plant testing of the evacua; ion system, testing of the communication system, and a test evacuation of all peoplc on the site. The tests win include actual contact vith all involved on-site personnel and off-site govern: rent officials. Testing of the com ntrd cations F.yntem includes sirc.ulating loss of telephone or.tae t one testing a specially installed radio nystem wit i bacaup bat Lery supply.h"a/
Environn.en:al Monitorin- ,
41 . 'Ihe apolicant initiated in June 1968, an environmental radiation monitoring program to determine and evaluate the effects of the olant's operation on the environment. The procruza will continue through plant startup and operation, and includes the collection and analyses of samples of air, water, soil, vegetation, milk and aquad c life. Studies to date have been con- -
auuted in cooperatier. . . J. ". the Minnescta Department of ileal th , and the applicant has taken into account the recom-mendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. Annual reports of the monitoring program are widely distributed to Federal and State agencies and are availab}e to other interested parties. Applicant is
!LQ/ Tr. pp. 19'74-85 1.
/t
.t t
h also conducting. n companion ecolog) cal :noniforing program dedicated to the. study of the aquatic- environment 'on a.-
q nix-mile stl' etch.of the Mississippi River in the vicinity.
of the p3 ant. The first program includes the study of concentration of radioactive. mater $ als in aquatic life, and the ecologicc1 program will include _ monitoring and.-
analysin of the effects of thermal di'scharges on- the aquatio i environmen t .E' Applicant testified that it does not presently plan to conduct studies on the effects .of-radioactivity on the.. terrestrial wildlife in the.. vicinity of the plant, primarily because similar terrestrial studies :
conducted by others,. /spplicant and the U. S. Public' Health Service, yielded nothing to indicate abnormal. concentration-of radioisotopes in terrestrial Etnimal life.
- 42. A representative of the'U. S. Fish and j Wildlife Service, testifying on behalf'of tue staff, said that preser.t knowledce supported the conclusion that fish I and other less advanced animals are less sensitive.to -
radiation than-man, and.that the concentrations of radio-activity required to injure fish and wildlife are much-higher than the maximum permissible concentrations specified in Commission regulations. Experience Scf o Tr._pp.: 502-3, 505-7, 509-11, 809-32,'834-6.
Si/ Tc, pp.'511-32, 558-60.
E/ sr. ;4p. p /-V,-840-;.
.g
derived fr n environmental monitoring programs conducted in the vicinity of other operating nuclear power plants indichten lo significant concentration of radioactivity in aquatic organisms. b .
Conatructi m in Accordance with Applicant's [
by Constrae ti m dermit Y$
- 43. '1hc Comission's DiviGion ' of Compliance h has follow ed closely the progress cf plant construction by means or a series of onsite inspections and conferences Z wy with Applizant's and vendor's perscnnel. The inspection W )??8 activities, conducted 'coth at the site and at the fabrica- [&
pn f,
tion shops included review and audit of Applicant's quality GO:
yW assurance and quality control programs, inspection of 7, y^
quality control records, observation of construction work in progress, review of construction procedures, observation of major testing, review of functional testing programs, anel review of preparations for facility operations. As a result of these inspections and conferences, the staff has concluded that "there is reasonable assurance that Unit 1 will be completed in conformance with Provisional Construction Permit :,0, CPPil-31, the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Com-dssion. "5h/
M / Tr. pp. 552-7, 832 4
':.uppl e:re nt Jo. to Stac 5:cfeq c ...uation, p. 19; z/ Tr. pp. 1713-17.
i 1
v
- ~s
7 ll.
il Wuring the course of conntruction of the emit.a'urt ni d rywell a crack was dlueuvered, on January .18,- ,
1968, in-tle containment' vessel-at a location where an: -
insert plai e was welded to the shell. . Tne evidence shows:
that at, extensive program was employed to isolate the cracking, ostablish its cause, and to.mt e.the necessary_
repairs. "he cracking was found to be surface type crack 4.ng ct.used by the presence of hydrogen,=high residual shrinkage t-tresses, discontinuities at the surface and high nardness. Lon-destructive tes ting methods showed no indication of subsurface cracking in areas where-surface ert.cking had beqn detected or in areas which were_ free of surface cracks. Tne cracks were repaired and the containment was-inspected and tested to assure' tha_t no cracking resulted from the repair procedure and that the cracks were properly repaired. The repair and l
evnluation procedures were independently reviewed.and found acceptable by the .%rtford Steam. Boiler and Inspee-tion Company and the regulatory staff.5.1/
45 Applicant was cross-examined at some length .
- by Dougan about the details of testing and inspection of the reactor-vessel, centainment, and associated-piping.
Testimony of Applicant and the staff demonstrated ~the- -
adequacy of Applicant's inspection programs and indicated-- -
55_/ Tr. pp. - 1793-4, 1934-68.
r , W
e ,
t
. i that; the components ' of' the primary; coolantisystem have '
been constructed, tested, and . inspc cted 'in accordance 3[
with tne applicable codes and -specifications. ;
- 46. IECCA and Dzugan- contend that the plant construction han not been adequate]y tested and inspected-by the staff in that the staff does not' do any '.' independent" testing and in that the AEC inspection' program -does - not.
provide for resident inspectors .at the reactor site. .
The record shows that the AEC inspc ction- program -1s ' directed-toward verifying, on a sampling basis, that .the completed ~
facility conforms to the application Etnd the AEC regula- _
tions. At periodic visits to the reactor site and to--
selected vendor shops, the AEC, among other things:
- a. reviews the applicable quality assurance-3 and quality control progrres;and'their-implementation; b.
reviews quE3ity control. records, including material test-reports and non-destructive test records;
- c. observes construetion work in progress l
and construccion procedures;1 including concrete placement, equipment . installationL and.non-destructive testing; r
l~
l-1/ Suoplement No. 1 to Staff Safety Evaluation;-Tr. 3p.
-7M-77, 876-901, 1930-1999 1
D 5fi
- .. . , 2: ._ . . e..
, _ . , _ .-y ,
, _ -w,.-w. .
s
, m
=
6
~
d.. trit nenses major const ruction- tents;1and :
l e.- reviews operating ortanination and reviews tiestj {
and' operating plans'End_ procedures.
4 , hhile-the AEC in'spectors do;not' physically-
- perform the tests, the inspectors to_in~dependentlyLreview:
- and evaluate the Applicant's record s including non-dentructive testing documentation. They make. independent-judgments of tent results and.the Nalidity of, test proce-f dures. For example, the results of the integrated leak rate-tests of the primary..contain:rrnt conducted by the -
Appl 3 cant in ihrth and -in April were not considered -
acceptable by AEC inspectors and the' test-hadito be__ l performed again. Y ,y 4 48. Pe AEC inspection program 1.s adequate and ,
would not be frustrated by incorrect records'vinether falsely- ;
or neglicently generated. No evidence was adduced in support of the'proponiticn that resident inspectors would necessarily do a superior job of inspection ~ than frequent, . ,
random inspection vis1ts. Nor was.any evidence adduced
! to challenge the conclusions of the inspectors, who'were -
present and : available durine, the course - of the- hearing .
for examination, that the plant construction conforms l with the construction _ permit, the application and Co:rmission's - _
ra / qupolement Ho.-1 to Staff Safety Evaluation, p.E11';- -
- P 6
-as
' h as t r.
F T N r -m-v-,.ewev- 1 r w-=r *+ k ee --M et-* re Mrew --c-s-'F,==Ns w- ttwwr , - v, w ww- Wr - , .e w-rr-'.?- -
m 'd W
-- h t. m. a.4, E '2
.g ,5,
- 4 requ i remen t.n . m- v:au any evidehe.e' adduced thatititere ,
in-any unnare feature of the-plant. Tne_ random nature of:-
the inspec ; ion progra n, the suastantialinumber of contrac-tors and Applicant personnel who would have to bexinvolved:
in a coverup of incorrect information, the substantial verification of records providediby construction testing /
and preoperational testing, and the experience and compe- .
tence of the AEC_ inspectors substantially minimize the possibility of any f alsification of the records.$
Furthermore, the- AEG requirements for quality assurance _
programi'O/ and conformance to codes and standards as well as the _ Applicant's vested interest in a reliable plantN collectively involve-the' application?of a complex =
nyctem of checks and tests. by nu'nerous independent organiza-tions to assare the integrity of the design and construction of the plant. While the plant construction is not fully complete, (a number of '..nresolved items have been-identified and all. tests have not been completed) ~.the evidence,:.
without contradiction, supports the finding that the plant-construction.has proceeded in conformance with the construction-58 / Tr. pp.. 1808-1811.
59 / 10 CFR Part.50, Appendix 3.
60/ Tr. pp. 1986-1999, 2135-36.
~
Th
. , ,. , . . ~ -
c; - - . -. ,. . .. . -
s, +
4 I
~
permit, the applihation and the rules ani: regule.tions: ,
'of the'Comnission. ..
- a 119 ~ -Tnis Poard is not req. tired to-find that; <
62
- are-- all- resolved
~
the- identi:'ied unresolved items prior to insuing-this Initial D'eciaf.on.. It is sufficient; for the Dourd to find that' construct, ion "has proceeded.
and thcire .s reasonable assurance t1at~ it will be com-pleted" in conformance wfth the construction permit, the
. application and the Com:.11ssion's - requirements. Tne . issu-.-
ance of the license ordered-herein is subject to verification ;
e ~
of completion by the Division of-Compliance.
m 4.
-s1f Tr. pp -1717-23, 2031-44.
a 36 -
4 4
- u. -
.- . - ... . . . - = . _ . . . - . - - ..~. . . . . .- - . .. - - .
.. . ',I 4 '-
I
- r Applicant ' u 5'uchnical Qualifica tions
- 50. 1pp11 cant has gained considerable-nuclear ex-perlenee in the construction and operation of the Pathfinder ,
Ato:c.ic Power Plant. Tne supervisory staff chosen to manage operations at the Monticello plant is compoced cf formerly -
licensed reactor oy?rators at the Fathfinder plant and the quallff tionc of the key cupervisory and prciessional per-connel meet the "Prcpored Standards for Selection and Train-inc; of Peruonnel for I;uelear Power Plants," Draf t No. 9, July 3,1969. prepared by the American Nuclear Society Stand-:
0
._.7._./
arda Committee.
AJplicant's Pinancial Ruslifications
- 51. "he Applicant estimates an average annual. cost:
of $8.8 mill'.on for each of the first five' years of-operation.
t.
The rccord indicates theit the Applicant's-operating revenues wil'1 be ample to cover theet cocte and to engage in the activ .
itie: which would be authcrized by the full power pre"isional' 63/ .
operating license. _
Financial Protection and I-uemnity Requj ~?nts
- 52. The Applicant has caticfied im presen/ financiali protection requiremente under 10 CFR Part 110 of the Commission l's - 4 regulations by furnishing to the Commissicn proof of financial-protection in-the amount of $1,000,000, as needed for the" period
-62/ Applicant's nSumnnry,-pp. 30-32; Staff Safety Evaluationi
_- x.,m., , c :
.g,..,..o _ r,e ,.
2:n1_ gm ,
. lC}/L Financial Quclifidaticne cf 1;crtnern Stator Power Company --
-Testimony 'of.G. F. Johnson;_ Staff: Safety Evaluation,-pp;: 50-L
,g -
g m
- , - , . . , , , ~ , . - . _ , . . . . - , , ~ , , . , , , - , . . . , . . . ._- ...s.. . _ . . , . _ _ . _ -. _ . _ ,,
s
- fuel ir stored unuted on the site, in the form of a Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Ascocia ticn policy lio. .HF-Pr 4, and by entering into Indernnity Agreerrent No. 3-42_ with the Correnincion applicabic to fuel storage. The Applictnt has obtained letterr frcr thc I;uclear Energy Lisbility Insurance Acccciation and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters correnitting to provide on aggregate financial protectica of up to $82 million the rrLximum amount required by the Com-mircion'c re6ulaticnr for a full power licence for a facility 64 /
of thic cize. - In accordance with section 50.57(a)(5)-
of the Conunis sion ' c rectila tions , the Commitsion will not' issue-an oper": ting licence until Applicant has obtained the aracunt of financial protection required by Part 140. Tnere is rea-l conable assurance that licant will obtain euch required financial protection.
[
ccm n 1,rer~ t and c r :t" 53 The activitier to_be conducted under the provis-iont.1 operational licence will be within the juricdiction of the 'Jnited States, and all of the directors :v. principal offict:rr of the Applicant are Unit.ed States citinene. The Applicat.t le nct t ened, controlled, or dominated ty sn alien, -j a fcreign corporation or a foreign government. The activities Financial -Qualificatd one of lierthern Statee Power Company --
~~-Gh/
Tecta.ony cf G. F. Johnecn; Staff Safety Evaluatien, pp. 56-
.il . -
fs f
-,g-.----- -
g .
- = ..
3 ,
1:
~
- .'1b y
i L to be conduc':cd.do not_ involve any reatricted' data,>but- -
u Applicant'han-agreed to cafeguard'any such data 1which might.
- \
- . becom ' nvol red in accordance with the Cor.mir r$ cn 'r ' i egula--
-t$ons. Special nuclear material for ice nn fuel -in thes pro-= .;
=
I-pared facill;y will be subject to Corrission regulations and
[
c: - ,
I I will W cbton,nedgm, from courect of supply.availabic-for civilian' .
L purpocec, t- :
b-.
FEVIEF OF /tPFLICATIOH-13Y REGULATCRY STAFF AND ACRS 3 S4 Since the filing in November 1968,.the application.
and the amendments thereto have been under:conetant and-thorough review and evaluat cn by the regulatory staff. During the ovaluntion, which was ccnducted in-accordance with current ,
Commicr$on regulatory criteria and policies,_the regulatory a g
I ntnff han held numeroua meetingc with the applicant to die- -
c u := a nsi clarify the informaticn submitted in the amendments. .
W :] '
The regulatory staff'made use of studien by independent--experts 1
in its evaluation-cf such pInnt safety aspects as air disper- l
\
~
cien of gaseous effluent: .-(Air Reacurces Environmental-Labora-~ l e 67f' site, tory, Environmental Science Service: Adminictration),
168l hydrology-(Geological Suivey, U. S. Department of the. Interior);~"
l 65/ Applic an'. ' 3 Summary, p. 35; Staff safety Evaluation, p. -56.
m
- y a
Staff aafety Evaluation,=p.2. .:
"66/ '
, .)!
[' O,(/ Staff Safety-Evaluation, Appendix-3.
i/ "ttfP Safety.Evaluatich, Appardi: C. -f
- 39 :
l f
.1
-_., . . - . . - ,. - -. . . - .._. - ~ .. .
> 4 o
a ecoj oglettl .cf f 6cta (Finh and W11dlire ' Service, U.- _ S. Depart-6^0 / '
ment of the ]nterior), reactor vessel stress annlysis 70 /
- (Teledyne Materiale Roccarch), ~ stbuctural. design ad54uacy 71 /
(Rathch M. m wmark_ Consulting Engineers), ~ and site seis-7h /4
~ "
mology (U. S. Coact snd Geodetic Survey).
- 55. The ACI:S hss also reviewed the_ amended application?
s for an operat irc .U cence and, after identifying several items f.or re:colution by Applicant cnd the . s taff and -making several rococaenda tlone , concluded that the plant can be operated at power levels of up to 1670 megawatts thermal without undue-risk to the health and safety of the public. The items- -
identified by the ACRC have been conaldered by the regulatory 4
utaff in its. evaluation of the application, and Applic nt-has l 71 /
L agrsed to implement 'he recommendations of the ACRS. ,
Q/ Staff St.fety Evaluation, Appendix D.
10/ Staff S fety Evjluaticm, Appendix E.
H/ Stuff _SEfety Evaluation, Appendix F.
12/ Staff Scfety Evaluatien, p. 7. .
l- 73/- Applicant's Summary, pp. 23-27; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 54-55. The ACRS reported on the suitability cf the-Montice31o cito in a letter dated May 11, 1966; en the conctruction permit application in a report dated April 13, 1967; on the operating license application through omdndment 24 in a report _ dated-January'10, 1970; and on-changes to-the reactor vescel ncaale safeends, as de-scribed in amendments 26 and 27 in a report dated _ June.
16,~ _1970. Tr.'pp. 465-6, 469-76, 1223-27 .
f .-
L I
i-A
?
t
- a. . - _ . . , _ . . ._ __. _ . . . .. -- ._-_ . . _ , ~ . . - - . , . . _ . _
-)y- <
a r
!;(s . Yhe lr, mtJ tn of - the regula tory otoff ' c review and -
evalua ti on ' O.' the .:pplication arc' contained in the regulatory- .
atafffc cafe:y evn3imtion which has.been made-available-to the
~ '
pubile and which hns been admitted into evidence.in this pro-cceding. The regulatory ctaff concluded in ita ::afety evalua-tion that, with respect to a provisicnal operating. licence operat'on Et power levels up'to 1670 megawatts authorizinE,/ 7 thermal:
- a. The applicant has submitted to the Com-mission all technical information re-
- . . quired by Provisional Construction .
Permit No. CPPR-31, the-Atomic Energy Act of 1951,i as amended-(Act), and the rules and regulations of thef Commissiori to completc the application for the pro-visional operating license; .
- b. The construction of Unit-I has. proceeded,
- and there 1e: reasonable assurance that' it will be completed'in conformity with Provisional--Construction Pe"mit No.
CPPR-31, the application, as amended, the provisionsL of .the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission).
c.-. There is reasonable assurance (1) thht the activitle: nuthorized by: the _
3 / Ettff' Safety Evaluation, y.p. 60- 6 1.-
L1 -
f-
- - ~. . - . .. . -
.... . . ... . ~. - - . ~ . . . . ~ . . -
h.. '
m - _
79..-
.' 7. :
I':
.provisiona1Loperating-lichnee canL be.
conducted without-endangeriris the henith and safoty of the.public; i and (ii) that such activities will
.be conducted in compliance with the, rules and regulations of the Commission;
~
- d. The applicant is technically and finan-~
cially oualified to engage.in the-activ.-
ities authorized by the provisional operatin6 21cence in accordance=with ,
the rules and regulationa of the Com- .-
i mission;
- e. The applicant has furnished to the Com-mission proof _of financial protection in accordance with 10 ' CFR 'rart- 140,. .
"Finanoial Protection Recuirements :
and Indemnity Agreementa" of--the Com-
~
mincion's. regulations; and.
- f. The intuance of the provisional operating:
license under the termo and conditions-
.cosed will not be inimical to the; ,
c(....on defense and security ~or to the:
b- ith and safety of the.public. -
.c m ' ' e a
..__.___.g._.. . . . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ - - . _ _ _ - _.
'J- g,.
.O -
s- .__.-,
0- * $
v 4
1 l
The_ regulatory ctaff also concluded and-testified in its ~
)
.Supplernent I!o. I to AEC Hogulatory Staff Safety Evaluation ihnt there 1: - recnonable ac :urance that ths plant- will! be ready for in.' tie) loading with nuclear fuel within:90 dayo. q
'l fro:n thc. date of irr:vanec of the provisional opera. ting l
licenne. 3 i
1 1
-I
. -)
r 1
t i.
[ ~.
f.-
I ,:
s i-
[
1 7
?
~, .. _. . . . _ . _ _ _ - _ _ ~ . . _ , . _ . . . _ . . - . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ - - . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, .~ ,
- l. =o _
4 -- , +< <
p .
s 4 -.
[-
p ,
!- CONCLUSIONS
- L .
!; 57. . Baced on the' Board's reviet I the--entire record -
p in this proce3dinc and the foregoing-finding 0 of fact and-
[
dincuccions, the_Dourd concludes that:
r The applicant-has submittoa to the Ch= mission l a. ;
[ 1 all. technical information required by Pro-
[
1 l visional Construction Permit No..CPPR-31,.
I-the Act,.and the rules and regulations of- -
the Commicsaon to complete the application-
" for ihe interim provisional operating licence;.
- b. Construction of Unit.l has proceeded,.and a there is reasonable assurance that it'will' :
t>e completed , in. conformity with Provisiona.
Construction Permit No.-CPPR-31, the appli- -
cation, as. amended, the provisions of_the' k Act and the rules and regulations of the .
Commission; I
- c. There is reasonable assurance-(i) that thel act-ivlties authorized.by the. interim pro- '
visional operating license can be condu.cted~
without endangering the.- health and -safety
-of the public, and (ii) that such; activities will be. conducted in compliance with the a
rulen and re- alations rof -the Corniscion;-
i.
L-. -t .
l .,
i
- i. - .
e,c i
(
w
c' .
- d. The applicant'is technical 3y and financially qualified to engagc in the activitiec authoriced bj the $nterim provisional operating licence in accordance with the rulec and regulaticns of the Commission;
- c. The applicant has furnished or will ti.mely furnish to the Comriccion proof of finan-cial protection in accordance with 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Require-ments and Indemnity Agreements", of the
. Comminnion's regulations;
- f. There 10 reasonable assurance that Unit 1 will be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel within 90 days from the.date of incuance of the interim provisional operating license; and
- g. Incuance of the interim provisional oper-atin;- license under the terms and conditions propoced will not be inimical to the common-defence and security or to the health and cafety of the public.
^!:
p .
' ORDER i
/
'.>8 . Purcuant to the Act and the Cot H anicn 's Regu3 n-tions, IT IS C RDERED THAT THE Director of Regulation issue to Northern Stat (s Power Company a provisional operating license, conta }njnr, Tec hnical Specifications as described in the hearinc ;
record, authordzdng operation of the Monticello Nuclear Gener-af lo70 atitir. Pl ant , I nit 1, at power levels up to.a maxir megantta thermal, upon verific? tion by the Commission's Divisj on of Cc: 1pliance that the r:onticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Un$t 1, has been comp:.eted in conformity with Provisional Construction l Permit llo . CPPR-31, the application, as amended, the provisions I
of the Act, and the rulen and regulations of the Commission, and upon recenpt by .the Director of Reactor Licensing of proof
+
that App 11can*; has provided financia? protection in the amount required by ihe Commirnicn's regulations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in accordance with Section 50.57(e) of the Commission's regula-tions, that thl: Initia) Decisdon shall becone effective ten uly; n t e r i t . , n ",uance ~ubject to (1) the revie'.' thereof and further decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, upon exceptions-filed ty any party, and (ii) such order as the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board may enter upon such Exceptionc or upon its own motion within forty-five days after the iscuance of this Initial Decision.
' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Valentine B. Deale, Chairman John C. Geyer
.J
,y 4 5 L ~ .- b b