ML20125B288

Initial Decision Authorizing OL for Fuel Loading & Low Power start-up Testing.W/Certificate of Svc & Draft Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law

ML20125B288
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/24/1970
From:	Deale V, Geyer J, Greuling E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 9212090291
Download: ML20125B288 (98)

Text

- .z . _, -

i ',

• UNITisD STATES OF AMlCRICA .

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

, N!

In the hiatler of )

)

i Northern States Power Company )

) Docket No. 50-263 (Monticello Nuclear Generating )

Plant, Unit 1) )

~j-. .

INITIAL DECISION AUTHOluZING PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE FOR FUEL LOADING AND LOW POWER START-UP TESTING PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS-

1. On April 12, 1970 -- five days after the prehearing conference on April 7 and two weeks before the beginning of the initially scheduled hearing on April 28 -- the applicant, Northern States Power Company (NSP), filed a motion requesting the board to authorize an interim pro-visional operating license. The license, sometimes referred to as a low power license, was to permit the applicant to undertake _ initial f:tel loading -

and iow power start-up testing at power levels up to a maximum of five

, megawatts thermal and without the reactor vessel head in place. The proposed low power license was to be subject to the regulatory staff's i

! verification that the Monticello plant was complete and ready f'or low power operation pursuant to the terms of the license.

l 9212090291 700424 .

! PDR ADOCK 05000263 O PDR

4

! 2. The regulatory staff and the intervenor, Minnesota Environ-I mental Control Citizens Association (MECCA), filed answers to the motion.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), a state agency which made a limited appearance, also filed an answer. The regulatory staff's answer offered no objection to the applicant's motion provided that any forthcoming license would be conditioned upon the completion and satis-factory testing of the secondary containment system and the liquid rad-waste system. The applicant's motion had not contemplated the completion and testing of these two systems. The answers of MECCA and MPCA opposed the motion on the basis that the proposed interim provisional 3

license deserves to be subject to the same kind of review and public j

scrutiny as the full power license, that piecemeal judgments should not s

be made by the. board without regard to the total operation proposed by... . .,

the applicant, that an untimely granting of the motion to authorize an interim provisional license would create undue pressure upon the board in-3 evaluating the application for a full power license, and that there is no showing of, nor is there in fact, any overriding need for the interim.

provisional operating license, i-

3. In keeping with its notice of April 17 to the parties and

~

MPCA requesting and' inviting answers to the applicant's motion and scheduling the motion as a preliminary matter at the beginning of the April 28 hearing, the board afforded the applicant, the answering parties and MPCA the opportunity to supplement their respective positions l

i

(

t

, regarding the motion. In its oral statement at the hearing on April 28, I

i the applicant agreed with the regulatory staff's conclusions calling for the completion of the secondary containment and radwaste_ systems prior . .

to fuel loading. The applicant noted a change in its previously scheduled date of May 8 for being ready to begin fuelloading to May 28, and it provided updated information as to the items remaining to be finished in i

the plant construction and the dates of their scheduled completion. In providing this updated information, the applicant distinguished between those items which were and those which were not, in its opinion, necessary for completion prior to fuel loading. The . applicant indicated the propriety

~ ~

of the low power motion in the context of AEC procedures and discountcd MECCA and MPCA's views to the contrary; it argued the need for prompt action from the standpoint of meeting the electrical power requirements.

of the public; and it stressed the lack of relationship between any of the particularized contentions of the intervenors and the requested authoriza- _

tion for a low power operating license. .

4 On April 28, upon hearing the applicant's supplemental statement pertaining to the remaining work to be done on the plant, the regulatory staff changed its position on the low power motion to one of opposition pending a review of the applicant's data submitted that day.

~ '

I .

j On May 1, the last day of this first series of hearing sessions, the i

regulatory staff, which had been requested by th'e board to evaluate the

'1 1

applicant's supplemental information, took the position on'ce more that ~

it had no objection to the granting of the low power license motion pro-vided that certain unfinished items were completed prior to fuel loading.

The regulatory staff's list of items required to be completed prior to fuel loading was a longer one than the applicant's. The supplemental answers of MECCA and MPCA at the hearing affirmed their previous positions of opposition to the applicant's motion for a low po>ver license.

5. The board denied the applicant's motion because of the

< incomplete status of the record. As of May 1, there was no compliance of any sort to the subpoena-issued by the board on April 24 calling for the production of AEC inspection reports. The intervenors' oppdsition to both the low power and full power licenses was understandably in an undeveloped state. Under the circumstances, due regard to their rights foreclosed the board from acting affirmatively on the motion.

6. Foilowing receipt of the regulatory staff's answer of May 8, to the subpoena stating that it expected to be abic to make available to the parties and the board the subpoenaed inspection reports with certain dele-tions on or before June 2, the board scheduled the resumption of the hear-i ing to begin on June 15. At the second series of hearing sessions, June 15-18, the record, as anticipated, was amplified substantially. Among the addi-tions to the record were the AEC inspection reports as made available by the regulatory staff, cross examination of the apnlicant's and regulatory i

. . . ~ . ..r.m . , _ . , , , . - . . c - ,

e..

5

(

staff's witnesses on all matters of interest to the intervenors exclusive of subjects arising out of the inspection reports, and an ACRS Ictter recommending a modification to the pressure vessel. Since the earlier hearings, the position of the intervenors for developing their cases had:

greatly advanced and with the maturing of the proceeding, the board,.

upon the applicant's request, consented to consider a renewal by the -

-4 applicant of its motion for a low power license,.

7. O_n June 17, the applicant renewed its motion for a low power license, and in support of the motion presented direct testimony of 10 witnesses. The three lead witnesses provided testimony covering the status of the plant construction as affected by_ the then current strike of-sheet metal workers, the scheduled completion of various construction items within approximately 4 weeks following the strike settlement, ..an analysis of the postulated. worst possible low power accident and resulting off-site dosages, and the need for placing the Monticello plant into service at the earliest possible date. The remaining seven witnesses dealt with indicated areas of concern to the intervenors in terms of their relevance or lack of relevance to fuel loading and low power start-up testing. ' These.

areas principally pertained to.cmergency planning, liquid and gaseous +

radioactive releases, bypass of the ARS system, scram insertion times, storage handling and leakage of spent fuel, validity of certain assumptions in the technical specifications, leak detection and loose part's in the primary

} coolant system, possible buildup of hydrogen in the containment vessel, and required testing of the primary system as built.

s I

. . . . . . . o

a w ... - . - - . . .

t

.{

8. Following the applicant's presentation of evidence and argument in support of its renewed motion for a low power license, the

, regulatory staff, MECCA, and Messrs. Dzugan, Pepin and Burnett cross-examined the applicant's witnesses and each was provided the opportunity to make its own answer to the applicant's motion orally at the hearing and in written form following the hearing. The regulatory staff submitted its ,

answer in part at the hearing and in part later in written form, including proposed findings and conclusions of law in the form of an initial decision authorizing initial fuel loading a'.? .ow power start-up testing. The regula-tory staff's response indicated concurrence with the app 1f . ant's evaluation of remaining work to be done at the Monticello plant prior to initial fuel 1

icading and with the validity of the applicant's postulated control rod drop i

accident and its calculation of Off-site doses resulting from such an accident. The regulatory staff also explained its view that the record is-sufficient to support the findings necessary to authorize low power i 2 operation. .

9 MECCA'sgesponse to the motion, made orally at the hearing, centered on the contenkion that the board should refuse to take any action 1  :

authorizing low power : operation until the entire hearing is completed.

Messrs. Dzugan, Pepin and Burnett's response to the motion in writing I

d o

i

f I: -

7-i following the hearing insisted _ that the motion should not be considered :

until the hearing and all findings are comp 1ete. They deprecated the appli-cant's claim of early need for the Monticello plant and argued that'.-

the applicant's testimony regarding low power operation was not relevant.

By letter to the board of June 17, MPCA continued its opposition to the applicant's motion and reasserted its objection that until the inspection

~

reports controversy is settled, the duty of the board to examine all the -

evidence cannot be completed. It also contended that summer power.

requirements were no longer a critical factor.

10. On July 6, the board certified two questions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board _ pertaining to the inspection reports controversy, and thereafter arranged for MECCA and Messrs. Dzugan, Pepin and Burnett to take depositions of both the applicant's and regulatory -

staff's witnesses on matters arising out of the inspection reports as made available to the parties. The board also scheduled a resumption of the

' i

• With respect to this controversy - a matter of first impression in an AEC licensing proceeding -- the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board responded to the certified questions by memorandixm of August 20, 1970.

The Commission may on its own motion, under $2. 786 of its Rules of .

Practice, initiate a review of the memorandum within 15 days of the date thereof.

o

.. ., m ..s._, . ., --- . -

4

' - 8-

~

hearing on August 5 and included on th'c agenda of the hearing the subject -

of the applicant's motion for a low power license. With respect to that -

t motion, the board requested updated testimony from the applicant j and regulatory staff and provided the opportunity for direct testimony by the intervenors. The board also provided for the completion of the inter-1 venors' cross-examination relating to the inspection reports as made availabic to the parties.

11 At the third series of hearings, August 5-7, the applicant and the regulatory staff presented direct testimony as requested, updating Accord-previous testimony concerning the applicant's low power motion.

ing to this testimony, the sheet metal workers had returned to work on July 9 and the plant was to be ready for fuelloading and start-up testing on August 24. The applicant and the regulatory staff were in agreement- .

as to what open items had to be completed before fuelloading. MECCA .

and Messrs. Dzugan, Pepin and Burnett offered no direct testimony on the low power motion and their cross-examinstion of the updated testimony on the low power motion related to ascertaining who verified the calibra-tion of the feedwater level instrumentation systems. . Arguments by each of the parties were essentially restatements of previous positions.

a. x ..  ;. - . .. . . z ; .=

= - - -

-f ' , -;

g.-

-1

. g.

i ,

12. In its consideration of the applicant's motion for a low power ,

l

' license, the board has addressed itself to the issues set out in the notice of hearing with the qualification that it has viewed the issues in terms of their application to authorization of-a low power license rather than a full power license.

t

13. MECCA and Messrs. Dzug'an, Pepin and Burnett have had abundant opportunity to develop their respective cases against the applicant's motion for a low power license. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, though not a party to the proceeding, has had the same opportunity to develop its opposition to the motion. Whereas in the early stages of the.

~

proceeding the b'oard was constrained to deny the motion out of ~ regard to the lack of opportunity for the opponents of the motion to develop their; cases, there is no longer any such impediment forestalling the board from going forward and dealing with the motion on its merits.

Ii 4 -

g o -

y - .  % ~ ., . - - - .. + O.

m _ _ _

^

I- 14. The board regards it as fitting and proper, and indeed ,

a matter of ordinary prudence,-under existing licensing procedures, for? '

the applicant to file a motion for a low power license when its application for a full power license is pending before the board in a contested proceeding and when its plant, constructed pursuant to an AEC Construction Permit,

=i -;

( is approaching completion and is nearly ready for-initial fuel loading and start-up testing. So far as this board is c'oncerned, the apflicant has no burden to prove considerations extraneous to the noticed hsues -- such as urgent need for powers, heavy economic loss or detrime atalimpact upon

~

the environment -- as necessary antecedents to the board addressing itself to the merits of the motion.

i

15. The evidentiary record in this proceeding may or may not be expanded when the controversy over the inspection reports is settled. Otherwise, the evidentiary record is closed. In this board's judgment, the controversy over the inspection reports affords no basis

~

for the board now to hold up its consideration of the. motion for a low power -

license. The opponents of the motion were given ample opportunity to-develop their cases with respect to such motion. Further, the board has i

taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the opponents which was

^T s .. .

not formally associated with the motion for a low power license but which ,

j had a bearing on low power operations. Upon examination of the entire =

.;' ' ~

public record as wel1 as the-portions of the inspection reports withheld from the parties, the board cannot find justification to defer passing' judgment

\ .

4 on the merits of the applicant's m ;on for a Irw power license. In I

reaching this conclusion, the board has been persua&d by the compre-l hensiveness and quality of evidence in the record supporting the motion I

as contrasted to the evidence and arguments opposing the motion.

I FIND 1h3S OF FACT l~

10. The Northern States Power Company filed its application

, dated August 1,1960, for all necessary AEC licenses to construct and i

operate a nuclear power facility at its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant located in Wright County, about three miles northwest of Monticello, Minnesota. Following isstmnec of the construction permit, the applicant submi. . Amendment No. 9 to the application which superseded in its _

l entirety . application foi a construction permit and the previous eight ameadments. Amendment No. 9 included the applicant's Final Safety Analysis lleport, required under $50. 34(b) of the Commission's Regulations, which was thereafter supplemented by Amendments 10 through 28 to the application. The application and the record of the proceeding contain extensive information about the plant, including data and information about the site and the basis of its suitability, the design and construction of the plant, quality assurance erdquality control programs, engineered safe-guards, design features not utlly developed and evaluated at the time

( .

l t

12 -

construction was authorhed, proposed technical specifications pursuant I to $50.36 of the Commission's Regulations, emergency plans, the appilcant's !

• technical and financial qualifications, and the plant's bearing upon the- l

! common defense and security and the health and t,afety of the public. The AEC's regulatory staff's testimony at the hearinE, including its own safety i

' evaluation, confirmed the sufficiency of the appilcant's data in terms of Commission requirements. ,

17. The regulatory staff's Division of Compliance has followed -

closely the progr;ss of the construction of the Monticello plant through a  ;

series of on-site inspections and conferences with cognizant personnel of ,

the applicant and of its contractors. The nature and extent of the regulatory staff's attention to the plant's construction, and its knowledge with respect thereto, were indicated by the testimony of regulatory staff witnesses re-sponsibic for AEC surveillance of the plant's construction and by 45 inspection reports of the Division of Compliance on the Monticello plant construction which, except for enrtain deletions, were made part of the _

evidentiary rec c d. The staff witnesses confirmed the testimony of the i .

l applicant's witnesses that the construction of the Monticello plant has gone forward and will be completed in accordance with AEC requirements. In p .l j this regard, the regulatory staff's witnesses noted the overa11' cooperation 4

i of the applicant and its team during the construction arlod.

. M

}

i , (_'

4 l

-- .4' 13 -

/

lt A control rod drop accident is regarded as the worst

./. i 18.

conceivable accident that could occur during the fuelloading and low

{

power start-up testing program. The appilcant calculated that under this f; accident condition the resultant radiological exposures at the closest _

site boundary would be well within the 10 CPR Part 100 guidelines; The regulatory staff agreed with the appilcant's conclusion and the fact that-the appilcant's calculations were based on conservative assumptions relative to fission product release, transport, and behavior within the facility and to the environs by way of the standby gas treatment system filters and off-gas i'

• stack.

19. The record shows that during fuel loading no fission or activation product formstion occurs and that during low power start-up h testing up to five megawatts thermal (less than one percent of full power),

small quantities of fission products and activation products may be formed I

! at a rate of less than one microcurie per second in the primary coolant.

The small quantitles which may be released as gases are of insignificant' consequence. Similarly, during fuel loading and low power start-up testing, the amount of liquid radioactive waste discharge is likewise calculated as inconsequential, .

20. The experience of the regulatory staff with the applicant's

.i j compliance with AEC requirements has been positive. Applicant's

O

- 14 -

t

. te i. y, corroborated by the regulatory staff's, indicates a determina-tion to meet the Commission's requirements. There is no evidence in the t .

record to suggest the contrary. The regulatory staff's testimony to the 1 . ._

effect that the applicant has a good record for keeping its commitments is in point.

21. The applicant has gained useful nuclear experience in the j construction and operation of the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant. The supervisory staff chosen to manage operations at th? Monticello plant is composed of formerly licensed reactor operators at the Pathfinder Plant and the qual'ifications of the key supervisory and professional per-sonnel meet the " Proposed Standard for Selection and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," Draft No. 9, July 3,1969, prepared by the American Nuclear Society Standards Committee. Both the initial fuel loading and low power start-up testing will be conducted under the technical direction of General Electric, the manufacturer of the reactor, which has extensive experience and know-how in the nuclear power field.

a w,w ---w, --.,~+-,--m ,. -

y + sm- a..+9m, -pr,- ,, w- - - - - , - , , - - - - , - -

,y_,- - ,n- -. m 4 -.

, , . . - 3

(

15 - ,

22. The applicant estimates an average annual cost of $8.8 million 4

for each of the first five years of operation. The record indicates that i the applicant's operating revenues will be ample to cover these costs.

The regulatory staff concurs in this conclusion.

l 23. The applicant has furnished to the Commission proof of financial protection in the amount of $1 million as needed for the period  :

fuel is stored unused on the site, in the form of a Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association Policy No. NF-174, and has entered into an indemnity agreement No. B-42 with the Commission applicable to fuel ,

storage. The applicant has obtained letters from the Nuclear Energy i

Liability Insurance Association and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters committing to provide an aggregate financial pro'tection of ,

up to $82 million, the maximum amount required by the Commission's regulations for a full power license for a facility of this size. -For pur-poses of a limited authorization covermg initial fuel loasiing and low.

power start-up testing at power levels not exceeding 5 megawatts thermal, the applicant is only required to have and maintain financial protection I in an amount equal to $4. 5 million, i t

x

~

.r 9

f f

..,,.4,-_. --.-,-,-A,,,-,n, - , , . ,n- .+-- + , ,-

~. . _ _

I

' (

l

24. Testimony of the applicant and the regulatory staff throughout t

the course of the three series of hearings described the status of the 4

Monticello plant's construction in considerable detail, including delays in con-i struction caused by various labor problems. Members of the board and representatives of the parties viewed in person the progress of construc-1

'. tion with an on-site tour of the facility. The most recent testimony of the applicant and the regulatory staff on August 7 indicated that the facility would be ready for fuel loading and low power start-up testing by i

August 24. At the time of the most recent hearing, items not yet

. completed and needing completion prior to fuel loading and lo y power start-up testing were identified by concurring testimony of the applicant and the regulatory staff. The regulatory staff also testified that additional open items relevant to fuel loading and low power start-up testing I'

which had been identified by Mr. Dzugan would be attended to prior to authorization of a low power license.

25. The activities to be conducted under the provisional operating license will be within the jurisdiction of the United States, and all of the ,

directors and principal 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 co'nducted do

> r

, (

not involve any restricted data, but the applicant has agreed to safeguard  !

any such data which might become involved in accordance with the I Commission's regulations. Special nuclear material for use as fuel in l

the facility will be subject to Commission regulations and will be obtained from sources of supply available for civilian purposes.

26. Since the filing in November of 1908, the application for a full power operating license has been under a continuing review and  :

cvaluation by the regulatory staff. The regulatory staff's conclusions, set out in its Safety Evaluation and in its testimony during the hearing, have been entirely supportive of the application. The regulatory staff's '

own judgments have taken into account two reports of the Advisory i

Committee on Reactor Safeguards on the proposed operation of the Monticello plant. These reports, dated January 10 and June- 16,1970, both concluded that the plant could be operated at power levels of up to 1670 megawatts thermal without undue risk to the health and safety of-the public. The reports included several recommendations which the applicant agreed to implement. * *

27. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act -  :

of 19G9. the regulatory staff introduced as Staff Exhibit No. 2, a ~docu-i ment entitled _" Statement on Environmental Considerations Relating to i

Proposed Operation by Northern States Power bompany of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1,"

e

'I' I

- = , . , , , ,,,-,1.-,w-.... 4-m-,r,m,-,,.m-w,,,,,-mm~--w,,.-, --,,mm~-._,_ ,,,-mm_.,--,--,,- - vm. s--- m - ~ - ,

• s.

(. . (.)-

CONCLUSIONS l

1 28. Without prejudice to its later consideration of the issues specified by the Commission in the notice of hearing as they relate to a i

i full power provisional operating license, this board concludes that, with

, respect to the issuance of a provisional operating license authorizing fuel loading and low power startup testing at power levels up to a maximum-. j I

of five megawatts thermal without the reactor vessel head in place:

a. NSP has submitted to the Commission all tech-  ;

nical information required by Provisional Con-

struction Permit No. CPPR-31, the Act, and l the rules and regulations of the Commission to ,

complete the application for the provisional  !

operating license; j

b. . Construction of Unit I has proceeded, and there is reasonabic assurance that it will be completed, in conformity with Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-31, the application, as  ;

j i

amended, the provisions of the Act, and the l rules and regulations of the Commission; . O i

L >

9 I

I 4

. . . - - . - - . , _ . . _ . , _ _ . . , . _ . .___._-_.__._._....-._,c_,_,.......,.._. - _ . _ , . _ , . _ . , . _ . , _ , . . . , . . . . , . - . , . . _ , _ _ - ,

. _ . _ .- ,-.- -- -, , ,_c ,,.- - - . - - - - - - - _ -.- -- - -. - - --- ----------- - - - -- . - _ --- -- --

(. -i 4 .- i

- 10 - i

c. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the hi!

activities authorized by the provisional operating {

license can be conducted without endangering the [

t health and saf ety of the public, and (ii) that such - -j activities will be conducted in compilance with rules and regulations of the Commission; I

d. NSF is technically and financially qualified to t

engage in the activities authorized by the j m ,

provisional operating license in accordance with - l the rules and regulations of the Commission; I c. NSP has furnished or will timely furnish to the ,

Commission proof of financini protection in  ;

'I accordance with 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements,"

of the Commission's regulations;-

'f . There is reasonable assurance that Unit I will -,

be ready for initial loading with nucicar fuel e.

I i- a j

s  ;

i  : ,

i f

i.

yvwy---r w 'er e,- yw y ye y9g,-wt- ..a ig,.ad--.-p Pg- y -yy[ q y h r, g v-ww g 4 gg_,-y-imey- h ,9 aq.Y r 4'NYFG8dF**MgT'W4"N -'Nf F- 8--W4 1#' TT'-r'9 T Y

. e . (

I within_90 days from the date of issuance of-the provisional operating licence; and

~l 1 .

! g. Issuance of the provisional operating license

' under the terms and conditions proposed will i -

i not be inimical to the common defense and -

I security or to the health and safety of the public.

ORDER I

~

- 29. Pursuant to the Act and the Commission's regulations,'IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Regulation is authorized to issue to l

Northern States Power Company a provisional operating license autho-rizing fuel loading of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, i

and low power start-up testing at power 1cvels up to a maximum of five-megawatts thermal and without the reactor vessel head in place (such license to be in keeping with the form of proposed license transmitted to the board and the parties by the regulatory staff on August 21,-1970) upon verified

tion by the Commission's Division of Compliance that the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, is complete and ready for initial fuel-

-loading and low power start-up testing, including completion of items neces--

i sary thereto as identtfled in the testimony of Adgust 7,1970. IT IS FURTHE@

l

! ORDERED, in accordance with 5 50. 57(e) of the Commission's Regulations, i

that this Initial Decision shall become effective ten (10) days after its k

( '('

1

)

l i

j issuance subject to (i) the review thereof and further decision by the  :

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, upon exceptions filed by any party, and (11) such order as the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal

Board may enter upon such exceptions or upon its own motion within forty-five (45) days after the issuance of this Initial Decision. -

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~

As r m C. Geyer 2

Eug6ne Creuljng LA -

i

_ _ _ .u

\ alentine B. Deale, Chairman Washington, D. C. .

August 24,197G s

j

---,n. , , ,.

gy 4p )-0$

g' ,y

,. . , e , s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c)

A70MIC 12iERGY 00M4ISSION /

In the Matter of -

l

~

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Docke o.

(Monticello Nuclear Generating ) -

Plant Unit 1) ) 4 6 f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Di1TIAL DECISION AUn!ORIZDiG PROVISIONAL OPERATDIO LICl2iSE IVR FUEL ICADING AND 10W POWER START-UP TESTING dated August 24, l$rTO in the captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 24th day of August 1970:

Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Attunic Safety sad Licensing Board Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. & Madden Suite 504 910 Seventeenth Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20006-James P. Gleason, Esq., Alternate Donald E. Nelson, Esq., Vice Chairman President & General Councel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Northern States Power Ccapany Donahue, Ehrmantraut & Oleason 414 Nicollet Mall 11125 Rockville Pike Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. D. F. McElroy, Vice President-Dr. John C. Oeyer, Chairman Engineering Department of Geography and Northern States Power Ccepany Environmental Engineering 414 Nicollet Mall' i The Johns liopkins University Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Enitimore, Maryland 21218 Dr. R. N. Barr, Secretary and.

Dr. Eugene Creuling Executive Officer Professor of Ibysics State Department of llealth Duke University University Campus Durham, North Carolina 27706 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Dr. Rolf Eliassen . Chief, Industrial Commission Department of Civil Engineering 137 State Office Building Stanford University St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 ,

Stanford, California 94305 Commissioner of Conservation Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq. State of Minnesota Department ,

Regulatory Staff Counsel of Conservation U. S. Atomic Energy Comission St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 I Washington, D. C. 20545 J

h a

e, _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .

- ., , - __ . _,- - -- - . - - - .= - - - - -

. ~

~ *

(

4 .

a paEe 2 50-263

}Ionorable 11arold E. LeVander Rev. Paul 11. Engstrcn, President Governor, State of Minnesota Minncoota Environmental Control St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Citizens Association 26 East Exchange Street lionorable L. J. Darthel, Chairman St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Wright County Board of Comissioners William J.11ennessy, Ecq.

Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 }!all and llennessy ,

55 Sherburne Avenue  !

0. Robert Johnson, Esq. St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 l Special Assistant Attorney General State of Minnesota Mr. Michael Donahue 717 Delaware Street, S. E. R. R. 3 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Elk River, Minnecota 55330 Mr. John P. Dadalich, Executive Messrs. Kenpcth Dzugan, 'lhcodore Director Pepin and Ocorge Durnett State of Minnesota Pollution Department of Physics Control A 6ency Univorcity of liinnesota - 1 717 Deinvare Street, S. E. Minncopolis, Minnesote 55455 l Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440

)

Information copica sent to:

Mr. John PcEors, President fir. John Rose, Vice President icgislative Comittee Minnesota Conservation Federation Clear Air-Clear Water Unlimited 4313 Shady Oak Road 315 Tenth Asenue North llopkins, Minnesota 55343 llopkins, Minnesota 55343 Dr. Dean E. Abrahamson, President Mr. Iconard W. Icvine, Chairman Minnecota Comittee for Environ-Trades and Inbor Aosembly mental Information Conservation Ccc:mittee P. O. Box 14026 1937 Worcester University Station St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Mr. Donald W. Andreve, Chairman Mr. Warren Roske, Conservation Minnesota Environmental Defense Chairman Council Sierra Club, North Star Chapter 1515 Otb Avenue North 3048 North Lee St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422

!!ro. Mary Brascuali Dr. Dean E. Abrahnnson Vater Resoureco Chairman 1092 25th Avenue, S. E.

Icague of Women Voters of Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Minnesota 555 Wabacha St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 s

y 's

-4

( ',

~

50-263 page 3 Mr. George McPartlin, Chairman Mrs. Fred C. Florton, Chairman City Planning Board of St. Paul Subco=mittee on Prevention of 1010 Commerce Building Radioactive Contamination St. Paul, Minnesota $5101 St. Paul Planning Board St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Mrs. Celeste M. Coloon Rt.1, Box 28 C Mrs. Paula Davio Cedar, Minnesota 55011 P. O. Box 235 Eagle lend, Minnesota 56446 Mrs. Joseph Waxveiler Rt. 1, Box 27  !!onorable Walter F. Mondale Albertville, Minnesota 55301 United States Senate Wachington, D. C. 20510 Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, Esq.

Asoistant Corporation Counsel lionorable Joseph E. Karth City of St. Paul Corporation llouse of Representatives Counsel Washington, D. C. 20515 City Hall St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Mr. E. D. McKinnon Secretary-Treasurer Mr. William Cunning ham St. Paul Trades and Labor Sierra Club, North Star Assembly Chapter 1091 llavthorne Avenue East 3048 North Ice St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 Mrs. Eugene C. Buck Mrs. O. J. Janski, State President 1013 South 7th Street League of Women Voters of Minnesota Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 555 Wabasha Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Mrs. John Wesler, Secretary Fourth District, Democratie-Mr. Peter Kreisman Farmer-Labor Party Minnesota Committee for 1510 Grand Avenue Environmental Information St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 P. O. Box 14026 University Station Mr. Adolph Ackerman Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Consulting Engineer-1250 Sherman Avenue lionorable Ancher Nelsen Madison, Wisconsin 53703 House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Minneapolio Public - Library (10)

Environmental Resource Center lionorable Carl Nordberg (10) 1222 S. E. 4th Street Clerk, Wright County Courthouse Minneapolio, Minnesota 55414 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Attention: George Bloom

,-- w 4 -wy - ,y+ -

r m -

( .

50 263 page 4 9

lakeview School Mrs. Carolyn D. Polovy Robbinadale School District Businecomen for the Public 4110 lake Drive interent Roo:n 208 - Fifth Grade 109 North Dearborn Street Minneapolio, Minnecota M422 Suite 1001 Chicago, 1111noin 60602 i k e t t,' fir s i Office of the Secretary Mr. EnEc1hardt Mr. Yore H. Blunt H. Smith t

i,.. .n y ._ , _,- _3y+____.m#y__ _w y, w- 9 ,.7, y y yr e y

,'/{"5if" ], ,

i$co. s um, rAc. W 2V3

$ p

, t AUC2 61970 >

tw <!  :>urer ~

lNI'IED STA7ES OF AMERICA / i tc: tm.,w . <j G cv h s AIOMIC DERGY 00fMISSION 9

.m .

In the Matter of '

).

.)

NORI1ETW STATES POWER COMPANY ) Lbeket No. 50-263

)

(Monticello Nuclear Gercrating )

Plant, Unit 1) )

PIDPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 00NCLlEIOG OF LAW i

BY ME AEC IEGULATOTN STAFF

! (IN MIE F0FN OF A PROPOSED Iff1TIAL TECISION)

Preliminary Statemnt

1. his proceeding involves the apr.licatisu of the Northern States Power Cwpany (IEP or " applicant") for a provisional operating license for Unit 1 of its Mcnticello Nuclear Generating Plant. 1/

Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as Unit 1 plant or facility), which will utilize a single-cycle, forced circulation boiling water reactor l

\

k ..

~

1/ he initial application for all necessary licemos to con- 1 struct and operate the facility, dated August 1,1966, was ,

i properly filed with the Cormdssion under section 104 b. of  ;

the Atomic EneITy Act of 1954, as amended. The application, as amended by amndmnts 1 through 8, constituted the appli-cation for a provisional constructico permit. After the application was myiewed by the AEC regulatory staff, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards, and after appro-priate public proceedings conducted by an aterde safety and licensing board, a pmvisional constructicn pemit for Unit 1 was authorized. Provisional Construction Permit CPPR-31 was issued cn June 19, 1967. Subsequently, amndmnt 9 to the application dated Noventer 7,1968, was filed with the Ccmnission in connection with the NSP application for a pro-visional operating 31 cense. This was supplemnted by amend-q mnts 10-28 to the application. Amendrents 9-28 constitute the application for comideration in this proceeding.

i t

\

8 -4 y'

desigred to cperate at 1670 negawatts therwd, is located in Wright County, Minnesota, en a site partially in Sherburne County, Minmsota, and partially in Wright County, Panmsota.

2. In accoMance with the Atanic Emrry Act of 1954, as amended (Act), the Ca: mission's regulations, and a Notice of llearing, 2/ a public hearing was held before this atomic safety and licensing board (boaM) on April 28 throurb May 1,1970, June 15 throurh June 18, 1970, and August 5 throu@ 7,1970, in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3/ to consider whether a provisional operating license should be issued to NSP. We Notice of llearing specified ,

the issues to be ccnsidered by this board in connection with the NSP application for a provisicnal operating license to operate Unit 1 at 1670 negawatts thermal.

i 3 Pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2 715(a) of the Ccnnission's Thales of Practice, limited appearances were made by eleven individuals on 2/ 35 Fed. Beg. 4344 (March 11, 1970). Pursuant thereto, a prehearing conference was held in Buffalo, Minnesota, on April 7, 1970.

~3/ Pursuant to an order of this board dated April 8,1970, subsequent to the prehearing conference in this matter, the location of the public hearing set forth in the Notice of licaring was chanc.ed fran Buffalo, Minnesota, to St. Paul, Minnesota. A conferrnce of the parties with the Chairman was held July 14, 1970, in St. Paul, Minnesota, to discuss a proposed discovery procedure. We discovery was ordered and depositions of staff witnesses were taken in St. Paul, Minnesota, July 27, 1970, and NSP witnesses July 30,1970, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We depositions were entered into-evidence on August 5, 1970. A further prehearin7. ccnference was conducted August 4, 1970, pursuant to this boarc's order July 17,1970.

.7 1

\

j

4 3- -

their cwn behalf or on behalf of oly,anizations which they Ivprvsented.

7he City of St. Paul also made such a limited appearance. A limited appearance purcuant to 10 CFR !i2.715(c) was made by the State of Minnesota Pollution Ccntrol Agency.

4. 'Jhis is a contested proceeding within the maning of Part 2 of the Ccruissicn's Tules of Practice. The parties to this proceeding were (1) tGP, (2) the AEC regulatory staff, tuxi (3) in-terverors (a) Minrenota Envircrrental Control Citizens Association

(!GCCA), (b) Michael Donahue, (who subsequently withdrew)b (c) Messrs. Y.enneth Dzugan, Theodore Pepin, and George B. Burnett III.

5. On April 12, 1970, lEP filed with this board a motion for an interim provisional operating license authorizing initial fuel loading and Icw power startup testing of Unit 1 at power levels of 5 mgawatts thenral and without the reactor vessel head in place, which was subsequently modified, renewed and updated. She board's disposition thereof is considered fully in its Initial Decision of

/ e t 24, 1970, and need not be discussed further herein.

I

6. 'Ihis Initial Decibion is concerned solely with 1GP's application for a provisional operating license author--

izirq; operation at steady state pcwer levels not in excess of 1670 negawatts therrral.

l 4/ Tcnahue's telegram of June 14, 1970.

l

.4 ..

Pirviings of Fact 7 we purposes of this proceeding am properly served by cmitting frcn this Initial Decision a great a:nount of descriptive informtion and surmtr/ of the evidence which is contained in the application, the AEC regulatory staff's Safety Evaluation, NSP's sternary of the application, and elsewhere in the record in this prv:eeding."

8. The application and the record of the proceeding contain much detailed information regardirc, the facility, including infor-mtion about the site and the basis of its suitability, the design and construction of the plant, quality assurance and quality control program, cry,ineered safeguards, design featums not ihlly developed and evaluated at the time construction was author $ zed ard subsequent disposition of such matters, proposed technical specifications governing operation of the plant, energency plans and such other technical infonmtion as is required to be provided by Provisional Constructico Permit No. CPPR-31, the Act and the rales and regulations of the Ocmnission.to ecmplete the application for a provisional operating license. The AEC regulatory staff has affinred that such 4

information has been subtrdtted. 5/

SNote: %e staff, however, would generally have no objection to NSP's mrration of this background and surinary of the evidence set forth l

j in parugraphs 1-7, 21-27, 29, 31, 33-34, 36, 39 42, and 44 45 of .

its proposed findings of August 14, 1970.

5/ Staff Safety Evaluation pp. 37; 60. Applicant's Su:rrnary pp.21-22,_

4

9. Applicant's testinony cn direct examination was primarily in the fonn of doeurrentary evid'ence. These documents included a docutent dated March 19, 1970, entitled, " Applicant's Strmary of f

the Application for the Provisional Operating, License for the Monticello' Nuclear Generating Plant No.1," ( Applicant's Sumr.ary) and a doctrrent dated March 26,1970, entitled, "Pinancial Quali-Pications of Northern States Power Company - Testirmy of G. F.

Jchnscn." Most of the staff's direct testimony was also documentary, 1 consisting of a doctraent dated March 18, 1970, entitled, " Safety 1 Evaluation by the Division of Reactor Licensing" (Staff Safety Evaluation) and Supplenent No.1 thereto dated March 30, 1970. .

4. I These doctrents were supplemented by oral testimony to include

'\

consideratico of Anendnents 26 and 27 ard Applicant's emergency p plan, and to reficct the cngoing staff inspections of the con- ,

struction of the plant. he staff and Applicant also offered in !

evidence a document entitled, " Record for Hearing - Correspcndence",

and the docutents referenced therein, for the pu@ose of including in the hearing recoM of the application pursuant to section 2.743(g) of the Ccmnission's rules of practice. In additicn Applicant and

- the staff presented evidence under cross-examination by the Inter-venors, by oral redirect and rebuttal evidence, and in response to questions asked by the boaM. Applicant and the staff also intrcduced testirxny in response to questions and cccrents by limited appearors.

, Of the intervenors, ECCA alone presented direct oral evidence and was cross-examined by Applicant and the staff.

i 95 i : r , -:enue n

l 4 .

10. We AEC mgulatory staff offered testimmy which indicates that it has followed' closely the progmss of constNetion of this facility by cT)-site inspections, and interrogation of and contemnees with ISP perscnnel and thoce of its contractors. W e AEC m gulatory staff concluded that there is masonable assurance that Unit 1 will be conpleted in cmfomance with the provisional constmetion pemit, the applicatico, the provisicus of the Act and the Ccrmission's rectdaticus, 6/ althouth at this tim certain specified natters mquire resolution.1/

11, 7he /EC mgulatory staff has testified as to its evalua-tion reganiing the activities which would be authorized under pro.

l.

visional operating licenses for operation of Unit I at 1670 megawajts thema1. 7he staff made use of independent experts whose reports (

am appended to its safety evaluation. She staff determined that '

I such activities can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and in ecupliance with the rules and mgulaticns of the Ccomission. 8/

6_/ Staff Safety Evaluation p. 60 and Supplement No. 1, p. 19

! 1/ Staff Exhibit 5, Tr.1272, as updated, Tr. ,1717-1723 i

8/ Staff Safety Evaluation, p. 60.

1 i

e f

l\

d 7,

12. NSP has considerable technical experience in the con-struction and cperation of nuclear facilities. The operating personnel for the facility met appropriate standards with respect to selection and training,1/

4 13 The moord indicates that the applicent will be (61e to

• obtain sufficient hands to engage in the activities which would be authorized by a provisional operatirc license.10/

14 NSP has satisfied its present financial protection:

mquiremnts under 10 CPR Part 140 of the Ccrmission's regulations by furnishing to the Comission proof of financial protection in x the amount of $1,000,000, an needed for the period fuel is stored N on the site, in thb form of a Nuclear Enerry Liability Insurance Association Policy ~ No. !W-174, and by entering into Indemnity If;rcement N0. B 42 with the Ccrmission applicable to fuel storage.

NSP has obtained letters fmm the Nucicar Enerry Liability Insurance Association and Mutual Atcmic Energy Liability Under.friters cctn-mitting to provide aggregate financial protection of up to

$82 million, the maxirum amount requimd by the Ccomission's i

{

regulations for a fbil pcwer license for a facility of this size.11/

9/ NSP's Sunmary pp. 30-32; Staff Safety Evaluation pp. 51-52.

, ]O/ Staff Safety Evaluation pp. 56-57 1

i 11/ Financial Qualifications of Northern States Pcwcr Car.pany --

! Testimony of G. F. Jchnscn; Staff Safety Evaluation pp. 57-60 I

I

- B- ,. ..

15. %e activities to be condtieted under the provisional operating license wiil be within the ,jurisdictico of the United States, arxi all of the directors and principal officers of IEP aru United States citizens. lEP is not owned, controlled, or dcminated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a fomirn govern-mnt . %c activities to be conducted do not involve any restricted data, but !EP has ar/ved to safeguard any such data which mirjit becon.e involved in accordance with the Cccmission's Ngulations.

Special nuclear material for use as fuel in the facility will be subject to Ccnnissicn regulations and will be obtained frcrn sources of supply available for civilian purposes. g/

16. We Advisory Ccunittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACIE) has reviewed the application and issued reports an January 10, 1970, and June 16, 1970. We reports identified certain matters for nirther consideration by the AEC regulator / staff and NSP.

We Irports concluded that the facility could be operated at power levels up to 1670 megawatts thermal without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. L3/ The. staff safety evaluation covemd the matters identified in the January 10, 1970, report 14/;

oral staff testimony was to the effect that it was satisfied with the i

R/ Applicant's Stanary p. 35; Staff Safety Evaluation p. 56, 4 13/ Staff Safety Evaluatico, Appendix A; Tr. p.1227.

lj/ Staff Safety Evaluation p. 54-55.

9- .- ..

applicant's pmposed pmgram for implenentation of the recom-nerdations of the June 16, 1970, ACRS mport. 15/

17 Canpleticn of the facility has been delayed by a nu2er of labor difficulties. It is very near completion and there is anple assurance that it will be ccrnplete as mquimd within 90 days frw. tre license issuance.16/

18. VECCA and Dzugan et al. indicated concern that radioactive effluents wem being discharged upstream from the drinking water inlets of St. Paul and Minreapolis. These are the nearest public f water intakes, being 33 miles and 37 miles, respectively, fran the plant. Testinony by Applicant and the staff indicated that the annual average ccncentration of radioactivity in the effluents at the plant outra11 and prior to discharge to the river was not expected to be mom than a few percent of AEC's limits in Part 20 t of its regulations. Because of flirther dilution affonded by the river water flow, the concentraticos at the public water intakes downstream of the plant will be further mduced to well below those at the plant outfall. 17,/ The potential consequences of the 15/ Tr.1225-1226; 1704-1705

~......s

,16/ Tr. 2137 17,/

7 Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 34-35; Tr. 647-650; 660-662.

worst possible accidental release frcni the liquid radwaste storapp .l l

tanks to the river have been c6nservatively analyzed. The results j indicate that even assuming this accidental micase, the radio-active cmcentrations at the public water intakes would still be at a level below the muinum operating regulator / limits applicable to effluent concentrations at the outfall of a nuclear facility. M/

19. Testimony in response to intervenor's questior.s reganiing ,

gaseous effluents was as follows. With the exception of the icng-lived radioactive noble gases, most of the gaseous isotopes which decay into biolor;1cally important radioactive daurhters decay into radioactive particulates during the 30-minute hold-up tim and thg hifh efficiency filters collect the radioactive particulates with k I'

an efficiency of 99 97%. The 1mger-lived noble ras isotopes would not be stopped by the filters and are micased to the at-mosphere whem decay to daughter products occurs. However, the contribution to offsite radiation expecure from the daughter activities--

of these noble cases is insignificant.19/ Applicant has determined that, based cn natural dispersion of gaseous effluent in the atmos-phere and the mteorological and tcpograohical characteristics of the site area, an annual average stack miease rate of 0.48 curies 1

g/ Staff Safety Evaluation,. pp. 36-37; Staff Deposition, Tr. p. 301; FSAR p. 9-2-7 19/

9 Tr. pp.1822-1824

s.

i a., -

per seccnd (ci/sec) can be accomodated without exceeding AEC's regulator / dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. _20f 'Ihe staff, using mom conservative assumptians, 2g has 31mited, as a condition of the Technical Specificaticns, the annual average stack release to 0.27 curies per second. 2_2/

2

20. Dzur;m et al. cross-examined Applicant and the staff at scne length based on a concern that the offsite dosage would increase-because of a possibic buildup of radioactivity over the yers from normal plant Ivicases. Technical testimony by the applicant thereby clicited indicated that accumulation, resulting primrily from deposition of particulate materials with long half lives, constituted a negligible contribution to offsite doce; Technical testinony by the staff indicated that their calculation did take into account

, the acctmulation of fission products with long half lives, i.e., I

~

halocens and particulates with half lives greater than ciMt days released to the environs as part of the airtorne effle?nt. In any event any such accumulation would be promptly detected by the Applicant's radiological monitoring program. 233/

20/ FSAR p. 9-3 1; Tr. pp. 566-568, t

21/ Tr. pp. 781-782.

22/ Technical Specifications (Staff Ex,1) pp.168-170.

I 23/ Tr. pp. 564-581, 651-672, 761-797; 'Ibehnical Specifications pp. 170.

9

i s ..

21. In determinirs the safety of the reactor design, detailed safety evaluations and analyses were raade by Appli-cant and the staff, and reviewed by the ACRS, to detemine the I capability of the design to mitigate the censequences of a design basis accident should it occur. 2J_/ Design basis accidents are the worst possible accidents postulated for the reactor. 2J/ With regard to the calculations of radiation doses which might be re-ceived at various distances frctn the plant in the event of a design l basis accident, MECCA, referring to a 1967 report prepared by the U. S. Public Health Service, 26/ contended that Applicant had not evaluated the consequences of an accident wherein 100% of the Itactor  ;

I b

core is ncited. MECCA requested that an operating license not be

\

grunted until such an evaluation is made. 2d/ 'Ihe evidence, however p indicates that the staff's evaluation and Applicant's evaluaticr1 of ,

I the radiological consequences of a loss or coolant accident at the plant did take into consideration the fission products which would result e fmn a 100% core meltdown, notwithstanding the fact that a 100% coru neltdown is considered incredible, i.e. , precluded by the incorporation of hidily redundant networks of engineered safe-gtnrds to cool the core in the event of a loss of coolant ac61 dent. '.

24/ Applicant's Sumary, pp.1-2; Staff Safety Evaluatic , pp. 43-49 25/ Tr. pp. 483 485

• 26/ htblic Health Evaluation, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,

~

Pay 10, 1967; Tr. p. 735 22/ Tr. pp. 688-689, 697

,4 # .~+-4 w----a.L- .J--J 4._C-- Ae4 m.M7- . __ m = + - - -am"d3 3 4 iia +-w d.e aaA AS & a. m a m. _,4p.

.e'-Jd e t

. -> f. i O

[

e 9

e.

Y 4

% F t

5 .

1 1

M L

e f I

i k

1 0

' 4 4

e i '

t I

L L

t e.

1 9

1

,1 i

(

1

.7

^

L

.g i

- g.

=-

.-  ; . .. * * - = w+ w y > ,, , ,, ,,, _, ,,,_ ,,. , ,

.= .. ..

I I

7hese safe 3uarts also thereby assure the integrity of the con-tainnent system for mitigating the release of fission products to the atncscnere. 28/ The results of independent analyses perfomed by the stal'r and the Applicant, introduced into evidence, demmstrate that the potential doses from a desigi basis accident are well within the guideline values of Part 100 of the Camtission's regulations. 29/

Such doses would not be expected to cause biological injury to perscos in the vicinity of the plant. 30/ .

22. li.tervenor WCCA indicated concem regarding energency plans.

The Incort shows that NSP has prepared a plan describing the emergency organizaticn and the arrangenents to be effected in the unlikely event i of an accident wnich mid1t affect the general public. Energency can-I nunications have been installed to provide uninterrupted liaison between  !

IGP has unde onsite personnel and offsite support groups and agencies.

1 28/ Tr. pp. 536-539, 641-647,1886-1918, 2000-2001.

29/ Applicant's Sunmary, p. 20; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 43-49 Although the accident doses calculated by Applicart and the staff were both well within the Part 100 guideline values, the staff's calculated doses were higher than those of the Applicant. Testimony by both parties explained that the calculations involve the assignment of rany parametric values related to the size of the source of radioactivity, transport and behavior mechanisms of Iw11oactive raterials, noteorological conditicns, and dose conversion factons. In nearly all cases the staff used more conservative parametric values leading to a higher ca)culated accident dose. 'Ibe staff witness emphasized the con-servatism of the staff's approach. Tr. pp. 420-429, 476-483 l

I R/ Tr. p. 1896-1902.

4 I

aa .s. . , ,

~14- '

i eurgency arrangenents with asponsible agencies of the State of Minnesota and with appropriate 1ccal. officials, and has made energency nedical arrangenents with a local hospital for treatrent for con-i taminated patients. 11/

23 NsP's energency plan had been submitted as a part of the FSAR. Applicant introduced as an exhibit in these proceedings detailed procedures which supplenent the energency plan and which will becme a chapter of the plant operations manual. In response to questicning by this Boani, the staff testified that the detailed procedures' con-forned to the staff-epproved energency plan, and, further, that the plan and the procedums neet the emergency planning guidelines of the [

t i' Conmission's proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 of its regulations,'

j and meet the intent of the proposed Guide to the Preparation of g Energency Plans, made available with the proposed amendment to 10 CF8 50 (35 F.R. 7518, May 21, 1970). We staff testified that Applicant Is energency plan had been myiewed to determine that its various elements wre sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that neasures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency to adequately protect the health and safety of the public and to prevent damage to property.

%e staff also testified that the detailed implementation procedures described the assignment of emergency duties of plant personnel and l' off-site groups, define classes of emergencies and tre range of i 31/ FSAR 613-44; Applicant's surmnry, pp. 33-34; staff Safety j

Evaluation, pp. 50-51; Tr. pp. 539-550, 551-552, 844-845, 901-904, i

1298-1307. ,  !-

O

. ;e

• I f ,

3 possible accidents, define the acti,on of responsible individuals i

both within and without Applicants organization in responding to the emergency and evacuating off-site personnel, provide details 1

for post-accident monitoring of effluents and the environmnt by the Applicant's staff and the Minnesota Departmnt of Health, describe the ccrmunications network for on-site and off-site ecmnunica- _

ticos, state the role of local authorities if evacuation beccres neces-sary, describe the plan for traffic control, including detour plan; and include an expanded reentry procedure which specirles the criteria for reentry of affected amas. 32/

24. Applicant's calculated doses msulting frcrn a design i basis accident are well belcw the guideline doses set forth in 10 CPR Part 100 of AEC regulations and would not require evacuatico of any people outside of the exclusion area. 'Ibe exclusion area is a fenced area within trye reactor site over which Applicant has cco,plete control.

Even AEC's more conservative dose calculations would not predict the need for more than limited evacuation of the low population zone which is an area within a radius one mile from tre plant. About 25 people live within a one-mile radius of the plant. It was not concroverted

}

by probative evidence that an accident which would require evacuation l

of people living beyond the low population zone was inconceivable.-

3_2/ Tr. pp. 1210-1216, 1298-1307.

inspections, that the ccarpleted facility would confonn to AEC regulator / Ivquiremnts. 7here is nothing in the Mcord to challenge the reasonableness of such an inspection policy, or indicate it was not within statutory discretion. Nor was any evidence adduced to challenge the conclusions of the inspectors, i who wem present and available during the course of the hearing for examimtion, that the plant construction confoms with the con- -

s struction pemit, the application, the Act, the regulations, and other regulator / Ivguiremnts. Nor was any evidence adduced that there is any unsafe feature of the plant. Tne random natare of the inspection pror; ram, the substantial number of contractors and Applicant personnel who would have to be involved in a coverup of incorrect information).the

' substantial verification of records provided by construction testingI k

and preoperational testing, and the experience and ccupetence of the i e

AEC inspectors lend support to the adequacy of the program to accompMsh its verification objectives and substantially minimize the possibility of any falsification of the records. 36/ Furtherinore, the AEC re-

_ quirvmnts for quality assurance progrwra 31/ and confonrance to codes and standanis as well as the Applicant's vested interest in a reliable plant 38/ collectively involve the application of a carplex system of checks and tests by numerous independent organizations to 1

M / Tr. pp. 1808-1813 i JJ/ 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

' 38/ Tr. pp. 1986-1999, 2135-2136.

l  ?

\

(

.c . . .

.'ii

. .?

9 1 .

assure the integrity of the design and ccristruction of the plant, i

i While the plant construction is nbt fully canplete, as discussed elsevhere herein, the evidence, without contradiction, supports

)'

the flnding that the plant construction has proceeded in conform 1nce with the construction pennit, the application, and the rules and

)

l regulations of the Camdssion.

29 7his Board is not required to find that the identified un-resolved ite:rs E/ are all resolved pric,r to issuing this Initial p

i Decision. It is sufficient for the Ik>ard to find that construction "has pInceeded and there is reasonable assurance that it will be completed" in confonmnce with the constructicn permit, the applica \'

' tion, and the Cannission's requirements. Shp issuance of the licensq ordered herein is subject to verification of ccrnpletion by the Divisi*cn I l.

of Conp11ance.

30. She' contentions of the intervencrs as set forth in tre record of the proceeding and the infonnation adduced as a result of examination and cross-examination of witresses by the inter' venors has raised no unanswered safety question as to csnstruction ,

of the plant in accordance with the construction pennit, the applica-tion, the Act, and AEC rules and regulations, or taking into account NSP's technical and financial quallrications, as to operation of the facility' I

39/

9 Tr. pp.1717-1723, 2031-20%.

t i

1

t; safely,and in accordance with AEC,ruies and regulaticns. Them has been no demonstration that the matters of concem to the inter-venom are inadequately accormodated by the design of the facility, l by the operating plans and procedures, or by the pIwosed operating license.

31. 7his board, at the instance of intervenor FECCA, by subpoena,

- dimeted the Dimetor of Regulation to furnish copies of all /SC Division of Compliance inspection reportL mlating to the inspection of Unit 1 while under construction. In msponse to that subpcena, the Director of Begulation furnished the reports with certain deletions of matters,-

the disclosum of which he detennined would not be in the public intemst.40/

b The infonration deleted from the inspection, reports consisted of (1) names of persons., other than AEC personnel, who provided infonration durink 1-the inspections; (2) refemnces to AEC intemal nemoranda, instructions, I

' including inspection techniques, and meetincs; (3) references to other identified facilities; and (4) infonnation of a proprietarf nature.

Categorf (4) deletions constitute the predcminant portion of the deleted material. NSP, on behalf of its contractors, offered to make auch data available to intervenors PECCA and Messrs. Dzugan,' et al. ,

for their use in conduct'Jng Cross-examination in the nearing subject to certain mstrictions. Il/ Intervenors L FECCA and Pessrs. Dzugan, et al.,

h0/ AEC Begulaton Staff Response dated May 8,19'to.

41/ Tr. pp. 1047-1050.

i s

() .

i mjected the offer objecting that it did not provide for full 2

disclosum to the public of the pmprietary data. 42,/ Both inter-venors initially mjected the opportunity provided by the Boarti to conduct any cmss-examinatico based cn the deleted version of the inspection mports famished by the AEC regulatory staff without prejudice to any subsequent rirbts to conduct such cross-examination after final resolu-tion of the matter of the deletions $/ but conducted such cross-examination at the August 5-/,1970, hearing session.

9 with the exception

32. All parties have ccanpleted their cases 3 of the matter of deletions frcxn the inspection reports. As to that nntter, the Atomic Safety and Licensirc Appeal Board in its nsorandum of August 21, 1970, pmvided certain guidance. 1his Board i

Conclusions 33, she results of the mgulatory staff's review and evaluation of the application are contained in the regulatory staff's safety evaluaticn which has been made available to the public and which has been admitted into evidence in this proceeding. She reguletory staff concluded in its safety evaluation that, with respect to a provisional l .

M / Tr. pp. 1052-1053

]

M/ Tr. pp.1322-1324.

1

?

l i

[ i x- ,

22 operating license authoriaing operation at power levels up to 1670 mgawatts thenna1[ M/ -

a, 'Ihe applicant has submitted to the Cannission all technical information requimd by Pmvisional .

Ccnstruction Pennit No. CPPR-31, the Atanic

}

Energy Act of 1954, as anended (Act), and the rules and mgulations of the Caanission to carplete the application for the pmvisional operating license;

b. 'Ihe construction of Unit 1 has proceeded, and them is reasonable assurance that it will be canpleted in confomity with Provisional Con-I struction Pennit No. CPPR-31, the applicaticn,-

as anended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and mgulations of the Ccomission;

c. 'ihem is masonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by the provisional operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public,

+

and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in ca:pliance with the rules and mgulations of the

,i Cannission; i 44/ Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. '60-61.

I i

e f-

d. 'lhe applicant is technically and financially

! qualified to engage 'in the activities --

authorized by the provisional operating license 4

in acconiance with the rules and mgulations of the Ocmninsicn; i

e. 'Ibe applicant has fumished to the Camissicn proof of financial protection in accortlance ,

with 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protectico Ibquircrrents and Indemnity Agmements" of the Ccmnissicn's regulations; and

f. The issuance of the pmvisicnal operating license under the term and conditicns pmposed will not be inimical to the ccanon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

'Ibe mgulatory staff also indicated that there is masonable assurance that the plant will be mady for initial loading with nuclear fuel by a date which is well within 90 days frczn the date' of our order for the.

issuance of the provisional operating license. M/

34. 'Ihis Boani concludes that, with respect to the issuance of a provisional operating license authorizing operation of the facility J

3/ Tr. p. 2137 .

q R

4_

at steady. state pcder levels up_ to .a nnximum of 1670 me6awatts

thennl

NSP has submitted to the Ccmrission all a.

• technical infomation mquimd by Provisicnal

' Ccnstruction Pemit No. CPPR-31, the Act, and the mies and mgulations of the Ccanission to complete the application for the pmvisional operating license;

b. Constmotion of Unit I has proceeded, and them is masonable assurance that it will be ccxrpleted, in ecnfomity with Provisional Construction Pemit No. CPPR-31, the application, as amended,__ h

, u the provisions of the Act, and the rules and re e,ula-  !

h ticns of the Ocmnission; I

c. 'Ibem is masonable assurance (1) that the activities l

$tuthorized by the provisional operating license can be conducted without endangering-the health and safety of the public, and' (ii) that such activities will be conducted in ccupliance with rules and mgulations of the Ocmnission;

d. NSP is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by the pro-visional operating license in accordance with the l

rules and regulaticos of the Ccanission; l

t i

(

1

~

-i i

e. NSP has furnished or will timly fumish to the

, Ccmnission proof of financial preteetion-in accorxiance with 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indennity Agree-ments", of the Cocmission's regulations;

! f. There is reascnable assurance that Unit 1 will be ready for $nitial loading with nuclear fuel within 90 days from the date of issuance of the ,

provisicnal operating license; and

g. Issuance of the provisional operating license under the terms and conditions proposed will not be inimical to the conmon defense and security or i

to the health and safety of the public.

ORDER

35. Puziuant to the Act and the Conmission's Pegulatiors, IT IS OREFED 7 EAT the Director of Regulation issue to Northem- ,

States Power Cocpany a provisional operating license, incorporating 7bchnical Specifications substantially as described in the hearing r

recoIxi, authorizing operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, at power levels up to a maximum of 1670 negawatts thermal, upon verification by the Cottnission's Division of Conpliance that the Ibnticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, has been 1 -

t completed in conformity with Pmvisional Constniction Permit No.

CPPR-31, the application, as anended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulaticns of the Carmission, and upon receipt by the regulatory staff of proof that Applicant has pmvided financial pro-tection in the amount nMuired by the Ccrrnission's regulations. IT IS.

i '

WHIHER OMERED in accordance with Section 50.57(e) of the Ocmnission's regulations, thac this Initial Decision shall becane effective ten days after its issuance subject to (1) the review thereof and further decision by the Atanic Safety and-Licensing Appeal Board, upon exceptions filed by any party, and (ii) such order as the Atamic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Iray enter upon such Exceptions or upon its cwt) notion within forty-five days after the issuance of this Initial Decision.

A'IUUC SAFETI AND LICENSING BCARD Valentine B. Deale, Chairman 1

John C. Geyer Eugene Greuling 1

4 i

r ..

~  ;,

-)

.n(un e F _

" e UNITED STATES OF A!.iERIC A 6 ~\ ,

[. '

!. \

I AT014IC ENERGY C0!OISSION __

g

'Q ,

In the Matter of 3

-S NORTHERN STATIS POWER COI4PANY Docket No. 50-263 Monticello l'u lear Generating '

Plant, Unit 1 APPLICA>iT'S PROPOSED FIUDII'GS OF FACT AUD C0!!CLUSIONS OF 1AU III TF.E F0?J4 0F A PF 0 POSED IIi1TIItL DECIS101: ORDERIi!G T}iE ISSUAUCE OF A PROVISIO;1AL OPERAT3UG LICENSE.

~

PRELI!4IMARY STA'IE!ENT i

1. On August 1,1966,11ortl:ern States Power Company (Applicant) filed uith the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC or Commission) an application for a license to construct and i' operate the Monticello l'uclear Generating Plant having a boil-ing water nuclear reactor designed to operate at power levels of up to 1670 megawatts thermal. Following a review of the August 1,1966,- application, including eight. amendments thereto,

^

by the Commission's regulatory staff (staff) and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Sarc. guards (ACRS), a public hear'ing was held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to consider whether a provisional construction permit should be issued by the Commission. There were no intervenors and the hearing was an uncontested proceeding. Pursuant to an order by that Board in its Initial Decision dated June 19, 1567, the Commission ./

y .

-f {

'. ,f..(

3 . .

~ .. . . . - . . . . .

issued a provisional construction permit authorizing the con- .

j struction of ;he Monticello; Huclear _Geacrating_ Plant, Unit' 1,- l on the .Miscisaippi River in Wright County, Minnesota. Appli-cant proceeded to construct the plant, l

2. On November -7,1968, Applicant submitted Amend- j H

ment No. 9 to the application which superseded in their entirety ~

the application for a construction permit and-the previous- ,

eight amendments. Amendment Ho. 9 requested a license to-operate the plant at_ its rated power level of 1670 megawatts ,

thermal and included the Applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This was thereafter supplemented by Amendrents-10 through 28 to the application. Amendment 28 to the applica-tion dated July 21, 1970 requested extension of the construc-tion permit to February 1,1971, and by Order dated July. 31,

. 1970 the staff _ granted such extension.

'. 3 Following review by the staff and the ACRS 'of the updated application for an' operating license,. -the Commis-sion, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act),

and its own regulations,-announced by publication'in tho Federal.

Registei"on March 11, 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 4344), lthat a public hearing would-be held before this. Atomic Safety and Licensing :

Board (Board) to consider' whether a' provisional operating -license a

should be. issued to-Applicant. The published Notice-of Hearing-

~

specified seven issues for this Board to consider at the hearing i.

2 --

1/

in arriving at its determination.

1/ The Commission's notice of hearing published on March 11, 1970, at 35 Fed. Reg. 4344, specif$ ed the following issues to be considered at the hearing: .

1. Whether the applicant has submitted to the Commission all technical inforration required by Provisional Con-struc tion Permit .:o. CPPR-31, the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Ccmmission to complete the applica-tion for the provisional operating license;

2. Whether construction of Unit 1 has proceeded and there is reasonable assurance that it will be completed, in conformity with Provisional Corstruction Permit N o . C P PR - 31, the application, as amended, the provi-sions of the Act tu1d the rules and regulations of the Commission; 3 Whether there is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by the provisional operating license can be ccnducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Cctmission;

4. Whether the applice2nt is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorised by the provisional cperating license in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commission; 5 Whether the applicant has furnished to the Commission proof of financini crotection in accordance with 10 CFR Part 14 0, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements", of the Commission's regulatir.s;

6. Whether there is reasonable assurance that Unit 1 will be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel within 90 days from the date of issuance of the provisional operating license; and 7 Whether issuance of the provisional operating license under the terms and conditions proposed will be inimic al to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

, O

x

4. The Notice of 11 caring set the time - and placr - of:

the hearing aid provided for a prehearing -conference.

It also-explained how-interested persons could. petition for-leave to ,

intervene -in the proceedings as partic s -and how persons': wishing -

to express-thair views at the hearing could do so without becoming inte evening parties.  ;*

• 5 As scheduled in the Hotice of Hearing, this Board i held a prehea ring conference' on April 7,1970, at Buffalo,.

Minnesota. Tio public hearing also had been scheduled -for

(

Buffalo, but ans held in the United States Federal Courthouses 'in St. '

Paul and Minneapolis in response to requests of, and to facilitate attendance at the hearing by, interested . citizens in the Twin:

2/

Cities area.- Public hearings were held -on . April 28 - May 1, 1970, June 15 - June 18,1970, August 5 - August 7, 1970 and '

November 19, 1970, all dates inclusive.

' 6. This is a contested proceeding within the meaning cf section 2.4(n) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. The -

parties to this proceeding are Applicant, the staff, and'the following three'intervenors from whom petitions for, leave _to intervene were received by_this Board, and granted:b! -

2/- Board ordel, April 8, 1970, Tr. p. 208.

,_ J/ A petition for leave to intervene filed by Mr. John Pegors on behalf of Clean Air-Clean Water Unlimited was denied by this Board for failing to state his contentions in reason-ably specific detail as required by section 2.714(a)'. of -the

_ Commission's Rules of Practice. The-organization was-granted the ridit to make a. limited appearance. Tr.'p.1209 9

-, . - n .

. ~

• A t y'

-a. Minnesota-Environmental Control Citizens.

. t Association _(MECCA);-

b. Mr. Michael Donahue, a resident of Elk h/: and' River, Minnesota (Donahue);

c.- W esrs. Kenneth Dzu(,an, Theodore Pepin, and Ocorge Burnet'., graduate students - at--

the University of M$nnesota (Dzugan).

7 Mr. John P. Badalich appeared pursuant to section-2 715(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.to make an unsworn statement on behalf of the Minnesota Pollut' ion Control ~

Agency. Pursuant to -section 2.715(a) of the Rules of Practice, limited appearancoc were Granted by this Board to allow presensa-tion of unsworn statements on behalf of the City- of St Paul 'and by eleven individuals on their own behalf and on behalf of organi::a-1/ >

tions they represented.

t -

MOTION POR IllTERIM AUTHORITY TO LOAD FUEL AND CONDUCT -LOW POWER STARTUP TESTING-

8. On April 12, 1970, prior to the commencement of the public hearing, Applicant moved this Board to order the -

3/ Prior to the second phase of hearings and1by telegram dated-June lit,1970, Mr. Donahue' withdrew as a party to the pro-coeding.-

3/ Tr. pp. 333-35.-

s/_ Tr. pp. 353-61.

7f Tr. pp. 335-52, 362-92, 467 69 q

- l

m _ _ . _._. _ -. . _ . .- . _ _ _- . _ - _ _. . _

1 iscuance of an: interim provisional' operating ikcense authorizing 3

initial- fuel load.img 'and low power startup testing at power levels. .

up to a maximum of five meSawatts thermal. That. motion was denied-by this Board on May 1, because, in this Board 's view, the record was not at that time sufficiently complete _to allow consideration-of the necessary findings to support such an order. Applicant renewed its motion for a fuel loading and low power testing license at the second phase of hearings on June 17, when the record was substantially more complete than it had been on May 1. The Appli- ,

cant, the staff and the intervenors were permitted to submit proposed findings and conclusions with respect to a low power license. Findings were received from Applicant, the staff and Dzugan, MECCA did not file any such proposed findings and con-clusions. The Board's disposition of Applicant's motion is con-sidered in its Initial _ Decision authorizing provisional operating - J license for fuel loading and low power startup testing, dated August 24, 1970. AEC inspection report 263/70-15 notes that the' I prerequisites for fuel loading were completed and fuel loading was initiated on Scotember .8,1970 after issuance of Facility License DPE-221.

Issue Number 1 Whether the applicant has submitted to the Commission all technical in-formation required by-Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-31, the Act, and the rules and-regulations-of the Commission to complete the application for the provisional operating license.

9 The application and the record of the proceeding contain much detailed information about the plant, including -

n

. data and information about the site and the basis of Lits suitability, the design and construction of the plant, quality assurance and quality control programs, engineered safeguards,

. design features not fully developed and evaluated at the time construction was authorized, emergency procedures, proposed .,

technical specifications governing operation of the plant, the

' Applicant's technical and financial qualifications, and the - _

plant's bearing upon the common defense and security. At the time the construction permit was issued for the plant a number cf design features were ' identified by the staff and the ACES as .arcas requiring further information to be developed and submitted. These areas, relating to flood protection, effluent control during periods of minimum river flou, seismic- design, tornado protection, reactor-vessel stress analysis, isolation valve testing, and on-site emergency power supply. have all been included in Applicant's FSAR and- the staff 'has concluded that Appli-8/

cant has submitted all technical baformation required.

10. The intervenors did not controvert the testi-

-mony and evidence in support of an affirmative finding on Issue- Number One. -

pp. 21-22*

Eh/ Applicant

p. 37;_Tr. 's-pp. SummaryI66,_

464- 469-47$ . Staff Safety . Evaluation, 7_

- - - _. - - ~ _~ .

4 LIssue Number 2 Whether construction ~of Unit 1.has.

proceededLand-.there is reasonable assurance that.it will-be completed, in' conformity with Provisional _ Con-struction Permit.Uo. CPPR-31, the-application, as amended, the-provi-sions of the Act and the rules and -

regulations of the-Commission. ,

11. The Commission's Division of Compliance has followed closely the progress of plant construction  :

by means of a series of'onsite inspections and conferences with Applicant 's and vendor's personnel. The inspection activities, conducte'd both at the site and at the fabrica-tion shops included review and audit of Applicant 's quality -

assurance and quality control programs, inspection of quality assurance and control records, observation of construction work:

in progress, review of construction procedures, observation c.

of major testing, review of functional testing programs, and review of-preparations for facility operations. As a result of these inspections and conferences, the1 staff has concluded that "there -is reasonable assurance' that Unit 1 will be completed in conformance with Provis3cnal Construction Permit No. CPPR-31, the application, as amended, ' the provisions of the Act, and ' the rules -and regulations of the Commission. " .9/ -

9/ Supplement Tr. pp . 1713 No.1

-17. to Staff Safety Evaluation, .p.19; i

(~v '

-i

-f 12, During the. course of constructionTof the containmen4 a crack was discovered, on January 18 1968, in the . containment vessel at h location where' an-insert plate was welded to -the shell. The evidence shows ->

that an extensive program was employed to isolate the and to make the.necessary a cracking, establish its cause, '

repairs. She cracking uns found to be surfa~ce' type cracking caused by the presence of hydrogen,- high residual;

< shrinkage stresses, discontinuities at the - surface and high hardne ss. Non-destructive tessing methods showed no indication of subsurface cracking in areas where surface cracking had been detected or in areas- which The cracks were repaired were free of surface cracks.

and the containment was inspected and tested to assure that no cre.cking resulted from the repair procedure and that the cracks were properly repaired. The repair and  :

cvaluation procedures were independently reviewed and found acceptable by the Hartford Steam Boiler and -Inspec-1_o/

tion ' Company and the regulatory staff. .

13 Applicant was cross-examined at some length 4

- by Dzugan about the details of testing and inspection of the reactor vessel, containment, mui associated piping.-

Testimony of Applicant and the staff demonstrated: the.

adequacy of Applicant's inspection programs and indicated- _

4 10/ Tr. pp 1793 4,1934-68. v A

2

1 that the components of- the primary coolant system have been constructed, teste , and inspected in accordance-with the al plicabic codes and specifications. ,

14. MECCA and Dzugan cont and that _ the plant construction has not been adequately tested and inspected by the staff in that the staff does not do any " independent" testing ano in that the AEC inspection program does not _

provide for resident inspectors at the reactor site.

The record shows that the AEC inspe: tion program is directc(

toward verf.fying, on a sampling basis, that the completed facility confor:as to the application and the AEC regula-tions. At periodic visits to the reactor site and to celected vendor shops, the AEC, among other things:

n. reviews the applicable quality assurance and quality control programs and their implementa-tion including compliance with applicable codes;

b. reviews quality control records, including material test reports and non-destructive test records;

c. observes construction work in progress and construction procedures,- in~cluding concrete p] acement, equipment installation and non-destructive testing; -

11/ Supplement No. 1 to Staff Safety Evaluation; Tr. pp.

- 764-77, 876-901, 1986-1999

9

c. witnessen major construction tests; and .

c, reviews operating organization and reviews tes and operating plans and procedures.

15 While the AEC inspectors _do not physically perform thc tests, the inspectors do. independently review 5

and evaluat e the Applicant's records including non-destructive testing documentation. They make independent 5 judgments c.f test results and the validity of : test proce-dures'. For example, the results of the integrated leak rate tests of the primary containment conducted by thez -

Applicant in March and in April were not considered acceptable by i EC inspectors and the test had -to- be

.l_3/

performed t. gain.

16, The AEC inspection program -is adequate and 1

wculd not be frustrated by incorrect records whether falsely-or negligently generated. No evidence was adduced in support of the proposition that resident inspectors would .

.necessarily do a superi or job of inspection 1than frequent,-

random-inspection visits. Nor was any evidence adduced.

to challenge the conclusions of the inspectors, who were -

5 present and available during the course of the hearing- .

for examination, that the plant construction conforms with the construction _ permit, the- application and Commission's jy2,/ Supplement No.1 to Staff Safety Evaluation, p.11;_

Tr. pp.1806-1808.

- 11'-

1 requirements. 11or was any evidence adduced that ' there '

is any unsafe-feature of the plant. The random nature of the inspection: program, ' the substantia 1 ' number of contractors L

and Applicant personnel who would have to be involved in a -

coverup of incorrect information, the-substantial verifi--

3 cation of records provided by construction testing and-preoperational testing, and the experience and competence of the AEC inspectors substantially minimize the possibility of any falsification of the records.13! Furthermore, the AEC requirements for quality assurance programs 1b/ and con-formance to codes and standards as well as the Applicant's vested interest in a reliable plant lE/ collectively involve the application of a complex system of checks and tests by numerous independent organizations to assure the integrity of the design and construction of the plant. While a number of maintenance items involving the standby gas treatment system and the feedwater pumps remain to be completed, the evidence, without contradiction, supports the finding that the plant _ construction has proceeded in conformance.with the construction 13/ Tr. pp. 1808-1811, 13/ 10 CFR Part-50, Appendix B.

15/ Tr. pp. 1986-1999, 2135-36.

-12e

)<

9 ,

I permit,=the application.and the rules and regulations of-the L Commission. e

17. This Board is not required to find that the <

plant is fully complete prior to issuing _this-Initial Decision.  !

It is sufficient for the Board to ' find that construction "has proceeded and there is reasonable assurance that it will be-completed" in conformance with the construction permit, the application and the Commission's requirements. The issuance

. of the licence' ordered hercin is subject to verification of completion by the Division of Compliance. In this connection.

-the Board notes that Dzugan's cross-examination based upon a preliminary report of the primary containment leak rate test suggested that-Dzugan was of the view that a different form of error analysis should appropriately be applied in evaluating the leak rate test results. The expert testimony in response asserted the uncontradicted belief that'with either analytical approach the results would be fairly comparable and that, even if the leakage was twice that calculated, the leakage would still beLwithin the technical specifications.11/ In any_ event the Board believes this is an appropriate matter for consideration by 'the Regulatory Staff prior to issuance of the full power license authorized herein.

15/L See Tr. pp. 1717-23, 2031-44 for.an identification.of unresolved items which'the staff will resolve.

W Tr. p 2342.

L.

Issue'Humber'3'

'Whether there is reasonable" assurance (1) that' the;' activities authorized by:

-the provisional operating l license can be. conducted _ without ; endangering - ,

the health and safet the public, and (ii)ythat of- such activi-ties will'be conducted in_ compliance with the rules and ' regulations of the i. -

Commission.

~

e The Plant Site

18. The site of the-Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, consists of 1325 acres located partially in - ,_

Sherburne County (on the east bank of the Mississippi River) and partially im Wright County (on the west bank of the River).

The _ plant is located in Wright County. _The site is about-22 miles southeast of St. Cloud (1960. population 33,815) and 30 miles northwest of -Minneapolis. The nearest residence is offsite, approximately 2750 feet from the plant. The area sur-rounding the site is primarily agricultural.- A-low population.

zone with a radius of one mile includes a population of about

._ 18/-

25 The minimum exclusion zone radius is '1600 feet, = The:

plant design takes -into account meteorological, hydrological,:

ground water, and. coil conditions, as well as the possibility.-

g of credible _ earthquakes, windstorms, tornadoes, and floods.

18/ Applicanst Summary, p. 3;' Staff Safety Evaluation, p. 5 -

g Applicant's Summary, pp. 3-6; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.-5-9. .

- 14 ..

,= - . - . - - . .. - .- .- . . - . - , . .- -

e 19 Intervenors contend; that it is Anappropriate to consider that. portion of the Mississippi river which traversos

~

the site as part of the restricted arca- for purposes of: deter- <

mining offsite dosages. The evidence in the record shows the unreasonableness of assuming continued occupancy of that ,

portion of the~ river. The uncontradicted evidence is:that.

there are no credible circumstances under which an individual-could remain on the river in the area of the plant long enough to roccive .a dose from normal operation in excess of .5 rem. The local sheriff has advised the Applicant that 20/-

~ '

in emergencies he will remove persons from the river area.

Features of the Plant

[. 20. The nuclear steam supply system is .a General-Electric boiling water reactor design which is identical in most features to Commonwealth Edison Company's Dresden Unit.2,'recently-licensed by AEC for operation, and is similar to: other operating-_

2_];/

boiling water reactors. The reactor is a-single-cycle, forced cir culation, boiling water reactor producing steam'for direct.use 2_0/ Tr . pp . 1816-1818.

2_1/ Applicant's-Summary, p. 7; Staff Safety Evaluation,_p. 11.

ya

in the steam turbine. The reactor wi11 bit fueled with slightly enriched uranium dioxide pellets scaled in Zircaloy -

fuel rods, I'.eactivity control is pro rided by movable control rods and var $abic recirculation flow?2l . The primary contain-ment system, coneicting of a steel dr;rwell and a steel pressure suppression chamber., is designed to accommodate the pressures and temperatures which would result f:*om, or occur subsequent to, a failure enuivalent to a. double-ended, circumferential rupture of a reactor coolant recirculation system line resulting in the loss of reactor water at the maximum rate. The primary safety functions of the secondary containment, consisting of the reactor buildi 2g and tne standby gas treatment system, are to minimize ground level release of' airborne radioactive materiala, and to provide for controlled, filtered, elevated release of the reactor building atmosphere-under postulated design basis accident conditions. The reactor building provides secondary containment during periods when the primary' containment system is in service, and. primary containment during periods when the primary containment is open.3l 2 .

21 In . addition to the primary and secondary. contain-- .

ment systems, -the plant has a number of safety features designed for -limiting the consequences of accidents, including the highly-unlikely loss-of-coolant accident. The principal safety features 22/ Applicant's Summary, pp. 7-9; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 12-14.

23/ Applicant 's Summary, pp. 9-12; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 22-25

.-f -

l 1

e f

. include the cmcrgency core cooling cyistema, b the reactor i

t 25 standby gaa t reatment system, ~~/a reactor protection system oi designed to tutomatically shutdown the reactor when pre- i

g  !

catablished cafety limita are reached, and a' standby liquil  ;

i control Lystem which provides backup :'eactivity chutdown capa- ,

t bility in the unlikely event that chu;doun cannot be accomplis 1cd 21l by control rodo alone, t

?

22 The reactor primary coolant cyctem includes-the reactor prencure vocac1, the two-loop. reactor coolant recir- i culetion system,.and the main steam piping. The water circula ting _

in the primwy cystem is uced both to cool the reactor core within the preaeure vencel and to produce -steam for the production of electrical power.

!L/ '

23. . Dzucan questioned Applicant-about the capability-

• to detect a loose object in the core which might interrupt l the coo. tant flow patterne. Applicant testified'that the velocities of the coolant at the bottom of the vessel tiere-too slow to carry objects-of significant size up-into the g Applicant's Summary, pp. 12-14; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 25-28.

g - Applicant's Summary, pp. 11-12;. Staff Safety Evalu'a tion,  ;

pp. 24-25 26/ Applicant's Summary, pp.-15-16; Staff Safety Evaluation,

p. 28'.

R' Applicant's Summary, p. 8; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.13 2_Bf FSAR, $14-1.

.a- -

a v.*y- m ++,-

,m---+,,- , ,.g-evg,,p.w,,,-+-,,

- --r e- 'w weew* *mw +W--miw.'g-rimew-w-C-e -,r..a mse r- sww w e o e wn- +e e. w T w = v < a . ; -www-* ~ = * - *.e w ewme -e'--rw-m1

i t

I coro region. The tentimony 'indicateil that small! "pontage ,

otamp uize" piccou of metal might be carried up into the  !

core, but would cause only local coo.lant blockage around- l t

a opecific fuel rod. Such blockage could conceivably in-terrupt the coolant flow enough to cause the rod to fail, but failure of one or two rods is of little significance in terms of release of radioactivity into the primary .

coola nt . AIp11 cant alto noted that calculations and tests show that tre flow through a channel would have to be blocked by 80 or 90 percent to produce fuel clad failure. Should l coolant act$vity exceed specified 11 nits, the steam line radiation mcnitore would detect it and cause the reactor ,

to shut down. g29

24. To ensure the integrity of reactor systems, in- y cluding the primary coolant system, the components are fabri-cated and-incpected in accordance with applicabic engineering codes and standards which include provisions for detailed

• l qtality control meaeurce taken during fabrication. Testimony; by Applicant, on c'ross-examination, revealed that cach weld ,

of the prescure vescel, for example, was inspected by various  ;

acientific methods about 17 times, that the vesselfwas fabri- i cated and inspected in euch a manner as to be completely certi-ficd and stamped under the A.S.M.E.~ code.for nuclear vessels,

~

- and that Applicant's subsequent _inopection of the accessible welds on the installed voscel yielded no questionable welds,.b.Ol , ,

][2/ Tr. pp.1150-52 L

30/ Tr, p, 764-77 -

' 18 - ,

)

y

. . . e .

4 _ ..sas- e..--+.w.-.,,w,--.. ,,e.-+---.e--.y.. ,,y-,-i.w,,,,,vmw.---w,*,ve-m--v<r - et

• e - *,+-w y w ry ge

i Liciuid Effluents

25. Liquid wantes generated by normal operation of tho plant are collected and procesced through a radwaote system.which removen radioactive contaminante by filtration and/or ion exchance demineralization. Radioactivity is also reduced through decay during storage in holdup tanks. Liquid wastes with .high levels ,

of radioactivity are procecaed and normally returned for rouse ,

within the plant. Low 1cyc1 radioactivity liquid waste is pro-cosced, atored, campled, analyzed, diluted, and periodically releaned into the Misolccippi River under carefully controlled batch-by-batch conditions to ensure that allowable concentration limite are not exceeded, even during periods of extremely low '

11./

river water level.

26. MECCA and Dzugan indicated concern that radioactive effluents were being diccharged upctream from the drinking water in-leta of St. Paul and Minneapolic. These are the.nearent public water intakes, and are 33 milco and 37 miles, respectively, from the plant.

Tectimony by Applicant and the staff indicated that the annual average concentration of radioactivity in the discharge canal wan not expected to be more than a few percent of AEC's limits in Part 20 of its regulations and, considering a further dilution factor experienced during the downstream flow, the radioactive

'31/ Applicant's pp. l8-19, 20; Staff Safety Evalua-tion, pp. 32-37, Summary,42; 41- Tr. pp. 470-71.

--w ,- -,-w,, .-,.%% ,%---.-,% ,,,.---v,-, _.-~-...~..,,%ym.<,,,-_..w..,,,

-  %..._,,.,,-wyr,w,--,w,r.'-..,,.,y.,% _E..,,_.~ , w +

_, .m. ., .._ _-__ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _.._ ._ __ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _

l

)

l 1

concentrationa at the public water intako would be well below allowable Part 20 limits. The consequences of the worst -

poonible accidental release from the liquid radwaste storage l tanks or from the condencate storage tanks to the- river at j the plant cite boundary result in a chort-term concentration  !

of radioactivity less than 10 CFR Part 20 limits.

Oaseoua Effluente

27. Radioactive gaaen generated during normal opera-tion of the plant are stored to provide radioactive decay time, filtered, diluted, and finally released through the plant off--- l gas atack which provides further dilution in the atmosphere. 3 Relcaron are carefully monitored and controlled to' ensure that j the radiation doce at the theoretical point of highest exposure offsite, i.e. at the alte boundary, will be below the limits of Part 20 of.AEC's regulationa. Exposures further away from the. ,

cite boundary will be utill less. A continuoua monitoring i oyotem automatically terminates release when preset limita are reached.

L 32/ Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 34-35; Tr. pp. 647-50, 660-62.

33/ Deposition Tr. p. 301; FSAR p. 9-2.7.- [

$ Tr. p. 659 -;

3.5/ Applicant's Summary, pp. 18-19,20; Staff Safety Evaluation pp. 37-42

- 20- )

e.--*ae-* -- -w w4 e,,,.w'r,-E.'.e w .u-- s- d e re w- m mw.--.I.-,4.----w m ev- c-w-e-rw,. .3 Urs - . - - --g-.ww,-- <,c-r.ymp.,,,-.-,w---w.-+r-nyry y+wa=~-- w.-,,, , v- -

y y s t-e- w q v =v-v i i - y

l

28. Most of the gaseous isotopes which are i e

biologically important decay into radioactive partic-ulate daughters during the 30-minute hold-up time and the ,

hith-officiency falters collect the radioactive particulates  !

with an efficiency of 99 97%. Undecayed nobic gases such as Krypton-85 would not be stopped by the filters and are released to a the atmosphere but their contribution to of f site radiation

- exposure is insignificant.3.6_/ Applicant has determined-that, ,

based on natu."al dispersion of gaseout effluent in the atmos-phere and the meteorological and topographidal characteristics

~

of the site area, an annual average stack release rate-of 0.48 curies per second (ci/sec) can be acccmmodated without exceed-  ;

2Gl ing AEC's regulatory dono limits in 10 CFR Part 20. The j staff, using more conservative assumptions, would limit the annual average stack release to 0.27 curies per second.

The expected composition of the effluent gases and the decay schemes of each radioisotope are considered in calculating the M

allowable discharges to the atmosphere.- -

29 Applicant's and the staff's dose calculations take-into consideration the entire spectrum of meteorological con-c ditions at the plant site and gaseous effluents can be released even during riods of the most adverse and unstable atmospheric

conditions.

31/ Tr. pp.1822-1824.

h FSid p. 9-3.1; Tr. pp. 566-568. '

t

' 38/ Tr. pp . 781-7 82.

39f Tr. pp.1074-1097,1822-1826.

L g Tr. pp. 9_8 6- 991, 18,1_ -1819.

. 8 _ ,

u- , .. a . . - ~ , . . . __ ., .

pt_ _ _ _

30 , Dzugan crocc-examined Applicant and the staff at -

some length based on a concern that the offolte dosage would increase becaitse' of a poccible buildup of radioactivity over the years fron normal plant releases. Technical testimony by the applicant thereby clicited indicated that accumulation, ,

resulting prinarily from depocition of particulate materials-with long hal:' lives, conctituted a negligibic contribution to _

offsite dose. Technical testimony by the staff indicated that their calcula, ion did take into account the accumulation of ficcion producto with long half lives. In any event any such accumulation vould be promptly detected by the Applicant's radiological nonitoring program. b

31. The Applicant's offsite dosage calcula.tions are performed using a mathematical model or formula derived from empirical observations. D ugan questioned Applicant about the accuracy of the model used by Applicant in predicting offsite

~

dosages under various meteorological conditions. Applicant exprecsed confidence in the model and testified that the model used is an analytical model developed at AEC's llanford labor-atory on the' basis of experimental results observed over many.

years. Applicant explained that an error analysis is performed at the time a model is developed. An error analysis is not, 30/ -Tr. pp. 564-581, 651-672, 781-797 4 e 4

s.  ;

o . . ,

_ _ , _.. . __ ._ . _ . . _ _ . ~.__. _ _.._._ _._ _ _ _ _ ._- _ __._._

i

{

performed on every project because the extremely conservative engineering and modeling acsumptions used make it unnecessary .

to do co. The model used by Applicant has been verified with the use of meteorological, off-gas, and dose measuremente at >

the Brochhaven National Laboratory. During cperation of the plant, the calculated modeln are verified by actual measure-ment under Applicantic radiation monitoring program. In any-event the Technical 3pecification limit is based on the staff's  ;

$3l more conservative calculational method.

32. Dzugan asked if Applicoat took into account. (

in the docage calculations the effect of the differing chemical propertien of the various molecules which have taken up tritium.

Applicant tectified that the poccible chemical alterations in molecules which incorporate tritium had been considered by .

the International Commission on Radiological Protection when it octablished the standards for tritium uptake -- the' effects are negligible and aro of no importance in determining the

)),}/

radiolo6i cal significance of tritium.

t

!)_2/ Tr. pp. 949-971, 977-984,1820-22. ~

jJQ/ Tr. pp. 971-972, 2003-2004.

23 - s.

g 9W +de g aw % n ue 'o-t==p Wem' tm' w-'wfv -Tn um

.* p r-Tr e3q p ye gy - . == g % t--Weu3- -y7-mu

Design _Banin Accident

33. In determining the safety of the reactor design, detailed safety evaluations and analy sea were made by Appli-cant and the staff, and reviewed by tae ACRS, to determine the capab'.lity of the design to mitigato the consequences

4 of a design basic accident chould it occur 3 Design basis accidents a're the worst possible accidents postulated

' ~

for the reactor. E! With regard to 1hc calculations of radiation do: ca which might- be received at various distances.

from the plant in the event of a design basis accident, MECCA, referring to a 1967 report prepared by the U.S. Public Health Service, contended that Applicant had not evaluated the-consequences of an accident wherein 100% of the reactor core is melted. MECCA requested that an operating license not be 47 granted until such an evaluation is mader / -The evidence, however, ind$ cates that the staff's evaluation and Applicant's c"aluation of the radiological consequences of a loss of - coolant-accident at the plant take into coneideration the fission product re-lease which would result from a 100% core meltdown notwithstanding

~

the fact that a 100% core meltdown is precluded by'the incorpora-tion of highly redundant networks of engineered safeguards 1 to -

33/ Applicant's Summary, pp. 1-2; Staff Safety _ Evaluation, pp. 43-49;

$ Tr.1pp. 483-85 Pablic Health Evaluation, Monticello Nuclear . Generating Plant, 16f May 10, 1967; Tr. p. 735 6

pjD/ Tr. pp. 688-89, 697. .

24 -

4..

1 6

t 5 I

i

- cool the con in the event' of a loss of coolant accident.

These safegut rdo also thereby assure the integrity of the j containment nystem for miti ing the release of fiosion products to t he atmocphere. Safety evaluations by Ap-plicant and the staff, introduced into evidence, demonotrato ,

that the donoc which could result from a design bacio accident  ;

are well within the guideline valuco of.Part 100 of the Com- I i

miscion's regulatione.Ao/ St4ch dorce would not be expected-to cause biological injury to persono in the vicinity of the ,

-r plant.,59' l l

Plant Security 34 Section 50.13 of the Commission'a regulations pro- -i vider that:

"An applicant for a licence to construct -  :

. and operate a production or utilization facility, or for an amendment to such license, is_ net required to provide for design featurec or other measures for g .'fP. IIW I Dau-39, 64.L-vt, .tBBC-1918, 2000-1. -

p Applicant's Summary, p. 20; Staff Safety-Evaluation, p._40. j Although the accident doces calculated by Applicant and the staff were both ucll uithin the Part 100 guideline valbes,  ;

the staff'c calculated deces were higher'than those_of the Applicant. Testimcry by both.partica explained-that the calculations involve the assignment of many parametric

• values related to the size-of the source-of. radioactivity, transport.and behavior mechanicms of radioactive materials,

-meteorological conditione, and' dose conversion _ factors. In .

nearly all cases the staff used more conservative-para-metric values leading to a' higher calculated accident _ dose. _ ,

The staff uitness emphasized the conservatism of the- staff's approach and suggested-that Applicant's parametric. values,=.

. Icading to lower calculated doses were probably.the more -

realistic. Tr. pp. 420-429,4'76483. '

h Tr. pp. 1896-1902.

4 4 g. 4 r n e I ,n m -. < . . e e a , - . - - o N - w,. . ,.w ea w e . , + . ww,.. , -r.,,,,e r w- - - - , ,w w w ~ .g g-w w- 4we-p,- -,e,

the specific purpoce >f -

against the effects of (protection a) attacks and destructive acts, including sabotage, directed againct the fa-cility by an enemy of the United Statec, whether a fortign government or other percon, or (3) uae or de-ploymont of weaponc iacident to U.S.

defence activities." ,  :.

Protection at;ainct poccible industrial cabotage including the provision of appropriate industri.11 cecurity measures, 10 an appropriate matter for considerition at the operating licence otago.E3/ Acceso to the plane will be safeguarded by a number of fenccc. Gater in the security fence will be locked when unattended. The locks and keya at the plant cito are part of a non-commercial keyway system established by the lock raanufacturer specifically for Applicant. Protec-tion of plant facilities will also be available from local 1aw enforcement authorities and National Guard personnel, when appropriate. The design of the plant structures and equipment which are important to .the safety of the plant include allowance for the effecte of floods, tornadoes,

. and earthquakes. These design measures taken together with the inaccescibility to the reactor vessel and primary oystem piping during operation and the redundant cafeguard systems inherently provide a substantial degree-of. protection against any public safety concoquences of possible industrial sabotage.

. The plant security measures make any such cabotage a very low probability event.2l1 -

g In the Matter of Florica Fouer & Light Company 2 CCH At.

E..L. Rep., 411259 SjV Tr.1853 -1880. '

i l

Emerp,ency Plans- ~

I 35, Applicant hac preparcu a plan deceribing 4

the emergency organization and the v.rrangements to be effected in the unlikely event of an accident which might affect the general public. E.T.ergency communications  :

)

have been installed to provide unin ;errupted liaison ,  :.

between oncite personnel and effcito support groups and Applicant hac made emergoney arrangements agencien.

with responsible agen::les of the State of Minnesota and with appropriate local officials, and has made emergency medical arrangements with a local hospital for treatment '

of contaminated patients.

36, Applicant's emergency plan had been nubmitted as a part of the FSAR. Applicant introduced as an exhibit in these proceedingo detailed proceduren which supplement ,

the emergency plan. and which will become a chapter of the plant operationc manual. In responac to questioning by this Board, the staff testified that - the detailed proce-dures conformed to the staff-approved emergency plan,.

and, further, that thS 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 1

2 staff W FSAR $131414 ; Applicant's Summary, pp. 33-3 4; Safety Evaluation, po. 50-51; Tr.pp. 539-50, 551-52, 812 11 1 4 5, 901-9024, 1293-1337 .

t

- e7 -

. . . - - . - , . - - , - = - . , . , , - - - , .-

r..-,m--.- - r n ergovw,..wwme,--,,-.,-~.,m.-m-2..==.-,,-,-e-- . e.,5..~ w, . ,, w - .,

the intent of a draft document which the staff had

• ', prepared for the use of applicants in developing their emergency plans. The staff testified that Applicant's emergency plan had been reviewed to _ determine that its various elements vere sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency to adequately protect the health

• and safety of the public and to prevent dcznage -to property.

The staff also testified that the dotalled implementation-procedures described the assignment of emergency. duties of plant personnel and off-site groups, define classen-of emergencies and the range of possible accidents, define the action of responsible individuals both within and without Applicant's organization in responding-to the emergency and evacuating off-site personnel, provide details for post-accident monitoring of effluents and the environment by the Applicant's staff and the Minnesota Department of Health, describe the communications network-for on-site and off-site communications, state the- role

- of local authorities if evacuat' ion becomes necessary, describe the plan for traffic control, including detour .

plan; and include an expanded reentry procedure .which 54 specifien the criteria for reentry of.affected areas. /

5/1/ Tr. pp_ 1210-16,_1298-1307 '

9 9 .

. i

... . ~ . - - . - - --- - .- -. - . - . - - - . - -.

t i

l 37 Applicant's calculated dosco resulting from t

. a design basic accident are well below the guideline doses ,

set forth in 10 CFR Part 100 of AEC regulations and would l not requir.3 evacuation of any people outside of the exclu- .

- cion area. The exclucion area is a fer;ced area within  ;

the plant cite over uhich Applicant has complete - control. - -  ;

U Even AEC's more conservative donc calculations would not 4 predict the need for more than limited evacuation of the  :

low popula*) ion zone which is an area within a radius one. ,

mile from the plent. About 25 people live within a one-mile radiun of the plant. It in inconceivable that an accident could occur which would require evacuation of 4 people living beyond the low population zone. Evacuation planc have been formulated and will be coordinated .by the offices of the Uright County Sheriff, the Sherburne County Sheriff, and the Monticello area Civil Defense Coordinator.55l

.38 Applicant testified that.the procedures for testing the emergency plan had' been prepared and ' the emerg.ncy plan would be tested prior to loading of fuel into the reactor. The emergency. plan . testing consicts of five separate tests including postulated airborne t

i 35/ Tr, pp. 1919-26._  :

i

?

i #

- l29 -

s

u. . - . ~. . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . . ~ . . . . . , . . . . - . - _ , . . - , , . _ _ . , , _ , ~ . . _ . , _ , . _ . . , _ _ . . . - , , _ . _ , . . . . . .

releasco, I.oatuint ed liquid' releace 3, in-plant testing.of .

the evacuation system, testing of the communication system, and a test evacuation of all peopic on the site. The tests include actual contact with all involved on- l 4

site perconnel and off-cite governm3nt officials. Testing 1

of the comnunicationc cystem includ rs cimulating loss of l telephone contact and tecting a spe ially installed radio syctem with backup battery cupply.55./

Environmental Monitoring 39 . ' The applicant initiat ?d in June 1968, an-environmental radiation monitoring progra.m to determine and evaluate the effects of the plant's operation on the environment. The progreen will continue through plant startup and operation, and includes the co11cetion and analysen of samples of air, water, soil,. vegetation, ,

milk and aquatic life. Studies are being' conducted in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of-llcalth, 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 progra~1 are widely distributed to Federal and State agencies and are available to other interested partico. Applicant'is lN p Tr.-pp.-1974-85 AEC Inspection Report CO 263/70-15 i reports that testing of the emergency plan was successfully completed.

i~

t 1-

= ,,*y--w ..--v. ,,%.,--w.v---,-y.---,-.-.,Ew-ww,, .,,,my,_, ,,,.,-ep,7_,. ...,,.[.,__ '

also conducting companion ecological monit,vring program dedicated  ;

t

• to the study of the aquatic environment on a six-mile stretch of the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the plant. The first pro- l 1

gram includes the study of concentration of radioactive materials  :

in aquatic life, and the ecological program will include monitoring [

and analysis of the effects of thermal discharges on the -aquatic environment .5_I/ Applicant testified that it docs not presently 7 plan to conduct studica on the effects of radioactivity on the  ;

terrestrial wildlife h the vicinity of the plant, primarily }

because similar terrestrial studico conducted by others, Applicant and the U. S. Public Health Service, yicided nothing to indicate abnormal concentration of radioisotopos in terrestrial animal 28/

life. .

?

40. A representative of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife ' .

Service, .tectifying on behalf of the -staff, said that present knowledge supported the conclusion that fish and- other less-advanced animals are less censitive to radiation -than . man, and that the cencentrations of radioactivity required to injure fish and wildlife are much higher than the- maximum permissible concentra-tions specified in Commission regulations.E9/ Experience derived from environmental monitoring. programs conductod in the vicinity of other operating nuclear power plants indicates no gnificant concentration of radioactivity in aquatic organisms.  ;

57f Tr. pp. 502-3, 505-7, 509-11, 809-32, 834-6.

58/ Tr. pp. 511-12, 558-60. ,

5S/ Tr. pp. 507-9, 840-3.

6,0/ Tr. pp. 552-7, 832-4.

-131 - -

[ .

, Issue Number Four Whether the applicant is technically

, and financially qualifted to-engage

-in the activities authorized by the provisional operating license in accordance with the rules and regula-tions of the Commission.

41. Applicant hac gained-considerabic nuclear ex--

perience in the construction and operation of the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant. The cupervisory staff chosen to manage operations at the Monticello-plant is composed'of formerly.

licenced reactor operators at the Pathfinder plant and the qualifications of the key supervisory and profeosional per-sonnel meet'the "Propoced Standards for Selection and Train- '

ing of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," Draft No. 9, s July 3, 1969, prepared by the American Nuclear Society Stand-'

ards Committee.51!

42. The Applicant estimates an. average annual cost I of $8.8 million for each of the.first five years of' operation.

The record indicates that the Applicant's operating revenues.

will be ample to cover these costs and'to engage Lin the activ- i itiec which would be authorized by the full power provisional 62/

operating license. ,

' 6j/ Applicant's' Summary, pp. 30-32; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 51-52;- Tr. 1926-1930; 2001-2002 J[p/ Financial-Qualifications of Northern States Power Company --

Testimony of 0. F. Johnson; Staff Safety Evaluation, .pp. 57.

-32 .

• _.__.m _. . _ _ . _ _.._. _ _ .. _ -~ _ , _ . __.

- - . . - . . -- _.--- ~ ~ . . - - . - . - . . - . . - . - _ - .. - -

MI .

Inoue Number Five Whether the applicant has furnished to-the Commincion proof of financial pro-tection in-accordance with 10 CFR-Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements", of the Comm- j ission's regulations. >

1 1

43 The Applicant has coticfied its present financial

]

protection requirements under 10 CFR Part 140 of the Commission's regulations by furnichin6 to the Commission proof of financial

. protection in the amount of $1,000,000, ao needed for the i

period fuel in stored unused on the site, in the form of a  :

Nuclear Energy Liability Incurance Accociation Policy No.

NF-174, and by entering into Indemnity Agreement No. B-42 with the Commionion applicabic to fuel storage. The Applicant has obtained lettern from the Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance  ;

Accociation and. Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwritera committing to provide an aggregate financial protection of a up to $82 million, the maximum amount required by the Com-mincion'c_ regulations for a full power licence for a facility _

of this size.E3/ In accordance with section 50.57(a)(5)- I of the Commiacion's regulationa, the Commission will~not'iscue an operating license until Applicant has obtained the amount P of financial protection required by_Part 140. There_10 o 2cascnable assurance that Applicant. will obtain auch required financial protection.

63/ Financial Qualifications of Northern Stateo Power Company ---

Testimony of 0. F. Johncon; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 56-57.-

~

33-

. . . _. _ _ . _ . _. a_.- ._ __.._.s. _ _ . _ _ _ __

t I Incue Number Six l

Whether'there 10 renconable assurance that i Unit 1 will be ready for-initial loading

, with nuc1 car fuel within 90 days from the  !

date of issuance of the provisional oper-ating license.

44. The regulatory staff concluded and testified [

in its Supplement No. 1 to AEC Regulatory Staff Safety Evaluation that there is reasonable assurance that the plant will be- k ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel within 90 days from the date of incuance of the provisional operating i licence. Such loading Was initiated on September 8,1970.uEk/ -

Iocue Humber Seven Whether iccuance of the provisional operating licence under the terms and conditions proposed will be inimical to the common defence and security or to the health and cafety of the public.

45 The activities to be conducted under the provi-alonal operational locence will be within the jurisdiction of the United Statea, and all of the directors and principal '

i 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 conducted do not involve any rectricted data, but E

Applicant has agreed to safeguard any such data which might become involved in accordance with the Commisalon's regulati'ons. 1 Special nuclear material for_use ao fuel in the proposed facility will be subject-to Commission regulations and'will be obtained -

from sources of supply available for civilian purposes.hdb!  ;

6]b/ Supplement No.1 to Staff Safety Evaluation, p.19; AEC Inspec- .

tion Report 263/70-15 6g , Applicant 'c Stunmary, p. 35; Staff Safety Evaluation, p. 56.

-- 34'-

-,o_%- .--=,.m-,yv- &c,,, #,- e , - - . w p -,, ..w.- g-e+w- .c w-v s.-, - . - , w- y

oom

~ '

-46. The findinga -in paragraph 18 through /10 apply i

, equally to Icaue Humber Seven. .

REVIEW OF APPLICATION BY REGULATORY STAFF AND ACRS  ;

11 7 . Since the filing $n November 1968, the application -

p and the amendments thereto have been under constant and thorough .

review and evaluation by the regulatory staff. During the cvaluation, which was conducted in accordance with current  ;

Commission regulatory criteria and policies, the regulatory staff has held nunerous noctings with the applicant to dis-6_6/ 1 .

cuss and clarify the information submitted in the amendments.

The regulatory staff nade use of studies by independent experts in its evaluation of cuch plant cafety aspects as air'disper- l sion of Caseous effluento (Air Resources Environmental Labora-67/

tory, Environmental Science Services Administra, tion), - tiite

. 6_8_/

hydrology (Geological Survey, U. S. Department of the Interior),

66/ Staff Safety Evaluation, p. 2. ,

67/

Staff Safety Evaluation, Appendix B.

_68/ Staff Safety Evaluation,, Appendix 0.- .

t 35--

• i

+ e-,- -,,,--*.,.y - -,--,[- '

-- ,, t ..--,, p. -% -

.w.m. .>.-w

-- - pc~ -.w

. o . .

ecological effecto (Fich and Wildlife Service, U. S. Depart-6.9l ment of the Interior), reactor vetsel stresa analysis (Teledyne Materials Recearch),.7Nstructural design adequacy 11/

and site seis-(Hathan M. Newmark Consulting Engineers), 7 2 mology (U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survty). . :.

48 The ACRS has also reviewet the amended-application for an operating licence and, af ter iccntifyin8 several items _

for resolutien by Applicant and the ctaff and making coveral recournendations, concluded that the p] ant can be operated at power levelc ' of up to 1670 megawatts thermal without undue' riuk to the health and safety of the public. The items e

identified by the ACRS have been consjdered by the regulatory staff in ito evaluation of the applicttion, and Applicant has

.7.3/

agreed to implement the recommendations of the ACRS.

69/ Staff Safety Evaluatien, Appendix D.

'7JL/ Staff Safety Evaluation, Appendix _E.

71/ Staff Safety Evaluation, Appendix F. ,

72/ Staff Safety Evaluatien, p. 7 73)' Applicant's Summary, pp. 23-27; Staff Safety-Evaluation,

. pp. 54-55 The inAC3S reported on the suitabilit11, 1966;yHof.the Monticello site a letter dated May. on the construction permit application _$n a report dated April-13, 1967; on the operating licenre application through- -

amendment 24 in a report dated JEnuary 10,.1970; and on changes to the reactor vessel nozzle cafeends, an de-scribed in amendments 26 and 27 in a report dated' June s ,

16, 1970. Tr. pp. 465-6, 469-76, 1223-27. -

- 36 ' -

1

/

t . '.

s

- 49, 'Ihe renulta of the regulatory staff's reviou and a

evaluation of the application are con;ained in the regulatory . t staff's safety evaluation which has been made available to the l public and ul-ich has been admitted into evidence in 'this pro- ,

cceding, Thi regulatory ataff concluded in ito safety evalua-tion that, with rerpect to a provisional operating liconee authorizing cperation at power levels up to 1670 megawatts l g/  ;

thermal:

a. The applicant has cublaitted to the Com- ,

mincion all technical-information Ye- t quired by Provisional Conntruction ,

Permit No. CPPR-31, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), and the  ;

rules and regulations of.the Commission  ;

to complete the application for..the pro-Visional operating liconee;

b. The construction of Unit 1 has proceeded, and there is reasonabic assurance'that it will be completed in conformity with Provisional Conctruction Permit-No.

• 1 CPPR-31, the application, as amended',.

the provisions of the Act,-and the ruleo-  :

and regulatione of the Commission; -

c. There is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by the- ,

y Staff Safety Evaluation, pp. 60-61. ..

4 G

- - 371 -

. - . ._ . .-.=.__.--=.-.-.--....a ----;.==

provisional operating licence can be conducted without endt.ngering the health and cafety of the public, and (ii) that auch activitice will '

be conducted in comp 1:.ance with the rules and reculations of the Commiccion;

d. The applicant in technically and finan-cially qualified to engage in the activ-ition authorized by the proviolonal operating licence in accordance with the rulco and regulations of the Com-mionion;

c. The applicant has furniched to the Com-mincion proof of financial protection in accordance with 10 CFR Part 140,

" Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreemente" of the Com-mincion'a regulations; and

f. The incuance of the provisional operating licence ender the terms and conditions proposed will not be inimical to the common defense and recurity or to the

' health and safety of the public.

~

6

-1 l

l .. _ . - .

c. There is reasonable assurance (1) that the activ-ities authorized by the provisional operating license .can be conducted without . endangering the  ;

t health and safety of the public, and -(11) that such j activities will be conducted in compliance with-the rules and regulations of the Commission; i

d. The applicant is technically and financially qualified to . engage in the activ1 tics authorized: -t by the provisional operating licence in. accord- l

-t tmce with the rules and regulations of the Commisnion; ,

c. The applicant has furnished or will -timely- furnish ,

to' the Commission proof of financial protection 3 in accordance with 10 CF3 Part 140, " Financial 1 Protection Requiremento and Indemnity Agreemento'i, of the Commission's_ regulations;

f. There is reasonable assurance that Unit liwill- .

be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel' within 90 days from:the'date of issuance of the provisional operating , license;1and -

g. Issuance of the provisional 1 operating license

-under tho. terms and conditions proposed will not be inimical to the- common-defense andI-security or to the health :and safety of the

--public.

I L

- . . - . . , . Q

' ORDER 52.

Pursuant to the Act and the Comminnion's Regula-

~ .. s tionc, IT IS O3DERED '31AT Tile Dirc ctor of Regulatdon issue to Northern States Power Company a provisional operating licence, containing Technical Specifications an described in the hearing record, authorizing operation of the Menticello Nuclear Gener-ating Plant, Unit 1, at power levels u1. to a maximum of 1670 megawatts thernal, upon verification by the Comminnion's Divicion of Compliance that the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, han been conp]eted in conformity with "rovisional Construction Permit 11o. CPIR-31, the application, an amended, the provisions 4

of the Act, ard the rulen and regulations of the Commicsion, and upon receipt by the Director of Reactor Licencing of proof that Applicant has provided financial protection in the amount IT IS FUhTHER ORDERED required by the Commincion 's regulationn . ,

in accordance with Section 50.57(c) of the Commicolon's regula-tionc, that this Initial Decision shall becomo effective ten days af ter its issuance cubject to (i) the review thereof and fu.ther decision by the Atom $ c Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, upon exceptions filed by any party, and (ii) such order as the Atomic Safety and Licencing Appeal Board may enter upon such Exceptions or upon its own motion within forty-five days after the incuance of thin Initial Decision.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEllSING BOARD

' Valentine B. Deale, Chairman John C. Geyer m_____-___ _ _ . _ _.____ _ _ _ ___ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . .

11C ARING TRANSCRIPTS NRC DIST' "UTIO!J FOR MRT S0 DOCKET M/"pJijA_L

, )

(TEMPOR ARY FORM)

CONTROL NO: 5812 A

FILE: 11E ARING TR,NSCRIP's!

DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER FROM: SECRETARY, NRC WASillMGTON , D. C . 5-13-75 5-27-75 XX ORIG CC OTHER SENT AEC PDR TO:

NC SENT LOCAL PDR UNC L ASS PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:

CLASS XXX 2 50-263 DESCRIPTION: ENCLOSURES:

No Letter of transmittal ree'd w/ hearing  !! caring Transcripts dated 5 13-75 transcripts............................. PAGE 1297 TilRU 1397 NUl!BEP OF COPIES REC'D 2 PLANT NAME: Monticello Plant '- - . . w : , - -,

FOR ACTION /INFORMATIOiJ DHL 5-28-75

' pEc rih / otter DEY0ui;c no0RE DE!11SE BRAITMAN

.i-

{ .g I

,- ~

_AE.C._._DYc"~~.'."_'.._.'._"*'.".)_**.'" ' ' ~ ".T.A._L CC:;;T,cLLo:hfb,

                                                -V;.C.:v.u;i !J. Q IIll:

r M ' DATE 12C ' D LTR T.IX rd I GI;C?. D/7F. OF DOC IT.Mi: Secretary, AEC k'nshington, DC 11-12-7h 11-15-74 . . . OP.IG CC OTICK S L?;T /.EC l . _

*i0:                                                                                                         SDIT LOCAL IOr
                                                                                                                                                                      ~

A L.C T:.CP I!?f 0 IhTUT lio CYS FiC'D DOCTIT 1:0: C1d.E S C.CLi35 m , 2 50-263 C;CLOSUTCS: Dr.5CR11IlD::: Hearing Tranteripts dated 11-12-7h 1;o ltr of trims rcc'd u/htarin;; transcripts... 112 thru 29h Page , DO 'N0t Rett).ove Ul>J"I !!!.12 : Monticello Plant. TCi' ACTIC ;/I? rc'?'sTIC:: rut 33 35-7h k d go r3D fcotum . . Dtycac . . . :cocar. . . Ddus c. . . rzume;

                                                                   -r        n ,

l(f'\\ 's p

                                                                                       'm%

y.rn , . e Decwto

                                                                                        'v , '

U22- .Q

s. t=

                                                       ~         '
                                                    ..          " O Y l li 19 7 4 w V ucuarm 2          WIL.tcnonT V                'O MEl ottu g;s 4                   u>

G f G .e .4.~ e- l

                                                                                                                                                                      !       I

ff. A < 4 '.

                                                       *'Ia/..:~A:1pn

_liR C -

                                                  'Tly."].LTIO,Nf0R PAR T SO,f;OCy r ~ r.*ATEr;I AL 0 EMPORAftY FORl.:)

k CONTROL NO: 5d.- FROM: gggag7jy3 , p3;  ; DATE OF DOC i. -- 1 _ FILE: - EE/RI?'C T3dCEE _{pHl :GTO:;, D.C. DATE REC'D 'L ,1R T V.'X TO: ~ 5-6-75 HPT OTHER tu. g k S 7 5 OfifG CC 1OTHER i l XX CLASS  ! SEEAEC PDR--- UNCLASS ] PROP INFO $_ INPUT SE NT u OCA L PD R ._.- I * -__ DESCRIPTION-i d _ NO C SI1EC D~ITO3E T N9T~

                                                                           ~_.

1 i

                                                                                                              ~                   50-263 ENCLOSUR ES:

Na Let ter of trar. snit tal rec 'd w/hcarint transcriptc,..........,,,,, * *- 11 caring Transcripts dated

                                                                                                                                                     ~

5-6-75 PACE 796 TliRU 961 1;U?2Elt OF COPIES P.EC 'D

                                                                                                                                                        ]

2 PL ANT NAf,*E:

--                     Monticello Plant                                                                                          .

_ _ _ ' ~' .

                                                                                                                                       . . . .. , u EG r                OLU,4                             Foil ACTION!!NFORt.1Al!ONDm.

DEYOUI:n s-17-7s 1:CO:E DE!:ISE DXAl*11AN e s x-

L , it 'U TA.'. :stalMc - filly

• iTiF.'UTIO*J FOR PANT 00_ Cog,7 fAATEr:l AL ffEMPOisARY FOH;.:)

                                                                                                             '                           hk
                                                                              .                                      CONTROL NO:                  52__41 F1LE: HE AR I N Th':S C.',1 P' F R Of.h SECRET Jiy, !:ac                               DATE OF DOC            DATE REC'D        LTR    TWX        HPT            OTHER 1745d1::CTON, D.C.

5-7-75 5-12-75 TO: XX 1:xc OillG CC OTHER SENT AEC PDR-C' /oS SENT LOCAL PDR.-.- UiJCLASS PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D

                                                                                                                                           ~

XXX DDCKET NO: ' 2 DESCRifUON- 50-263 ENCLOLUhES: No t r a nLet s c rter of. .trannnit i p t s: . . . . . * ' tal rec 'd v/hearinn llcaring Transcripts dcLed ~ 962 5-7-75 PAGE_ THP,U 1148 - 1:U!EER OF COPIES REC 'D_ 2 i PLANT NAME: Monticello Plant [1{. l.**.1".._ e' ; ..,~ Foil ACTION /ltf --t- f ORM A_TI.O. il DUT  % .12,., 7 s IC I3hE OLLET prygg;;g 3;ggp" UL,UISE B3AITMAN , i r l'

                                                                                            ,                                  O                b

llEAR11:0 TRANSC Al?TS - NRC DIR1i 1TI,OJJ FOR PART.00 DOCKET MN .[1AL [/ 9/2 (TEMPONARY FORi.1)

                                  '                t                     '              CONTROL NO: 5630 FILE: 11 EARING TRy;3CRIPTS DATE REC'D        LTil    TWX     RPT          OTHER-DATE OF DOC F ROM: SECRET ARY ,1;RC WASilli:Gio!;, D.C.                  5-15-75          3 22-75 ORIG           CC    OTHER        SENT AEC POR.

TO: UC 2 SENT LOCAL PDR.

                                                                           ~

INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO: CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO m r: 50-263 _ ENCLOSURES: OESCRIPTION: Ilcaring Transcripts dated 5-15-75 lio 1,etter of transmittal roc'd w/ hearing 1F45 transcripts............................. PAGE 1565 TilRU_

                                                              !? UMBER OF COPIES REC'D                  2 PLANT N AME:

3 ~"* /3 NL

                                            .F.O. R ACTION / INFORM ATIOij DEYO'JtiG           FOORE        't)E!;ISE    BRAITllAN REG FILE            LER 9

a e S l }

EF,N d . T w :...,... ..- NRC S "! R':'.UTIO*4 00R FAfli 'f 0 DOCKET '4 ATFHI Al. (TEMi' Oil ARY FOHj/) CONTROL NO: k - F1LE: _.lj!APlE'; Tl

                                                                                                                \

TWX RPT [ OTH.' DATE OF DOC D ATE dEC'D LTR -i Of.h SECRET /;tY ,1:::c 5-14-75 5-20-75

w. cur: INu:, D.C. CC ' OTHEfl SENT AEC PDR._

ORIG SE N . L OCA L P D R .__ ___ , TO: 1:.aC 2 5 DOCKET NO: INPUT NO CYS REC'D I UNC L ASS ' PROPINFO 50-263 CLASS i l m , g ENCLOSURES: 5-14-75 DESCRIPTION: llearing Transcripts dated 1564 2 1;o letter of trannmittal rec'd w/hearin,e P AGE aqq 711RU trar:scr19tc.............................  ?- *

• OF COPIT.S P.EC'D 2

1 1 PLANT N AME: 5-20-75 JGB .

 ~

FGH iiCTint!/INFORMATION liOO ?,E DElilSE B" AITIIAN uoLLEit DEYOUl?O JEG FILE a 4. T

     +                                                                                                 ,

I d

                                                                              /lls                      I (RT15) 50-263                            .i REOULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION                                 SYSTEM           :l DISTRIBUTION FOR INCOMING MATERIAL                             DOCDATE: 01/31/78 ORG:                                    DATE RCVD: 02/10/78 REC:                                 NRC NRC                                                                     COPIES RECEIVED             2 LTR O     ENCL 2 NOTARI ZED: NO DOCTYPE: OTHER

SUBJECT:

01. 01/78 AT ST P AUL MN RE AMEND TO-TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING HELDDPR-22 CONCERNING REPLAC

-PROVISIONAL OPERATING LIC NOEXISTING PACKS IN T PAGE 1 TO 77. XJM REVIEWER INITIAL: DISTRIBUTOR INITIAL: PLANT NAME: MONTICELLO *********** o00****+********* DISTRIBUTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS AS FOL HEARING TRANSCRIPTS. (DISTRIBUTION CODE DOO4) . PROJ MGR SNAIDER**W/ ENCL FOR ACTION: DENISE(AS ASSGN)**LTR ONLY ACRS**W/O ENCL INTERNAL: gq.IILEA*U5DSALTZMAN(ANTI-TRUST)**LTR ONLY

                         **W/ ENCL EXTERNAL:

i CONTROL NBR: 7804100l LTR 4 ENCL 2 DISTRIBUTION: SIZE: 77P THE END *****************************

        ********++>+***********************
                                                                                  \\

f v.C M 'T ~ I * " ~~ ' ' ' 7 ^ ' * " ? ' a "^-" " "t--'.1AL CC=:;TT,0L ::D: 32Apn

                        ,   a, -
                                 '                              O ; '.t6idc.: . c a.1)                                                                            ,
                 /* '

t,i y3w [,'jQQ - DAI2 FIC' D LTR Tu TJT CI:2.1 D//il: CF UCC l' P.C'.i : - Secretary, AEC 1l shin;; ten, DC 31 13-Th 11-19-7L OTi:R SE!iT 1.LC 1;.: OP.I G CC TO: SDiT LCCAL F::

                                                                                                                                                                    ~~~
             !!C                                                                                                                DOCPIT 1;0:

P.' 01' 11;FO IhTUT  !;0 CYS FIC' D

   'C11.F S      r;;CD.53 2                                            50-263          ..

E ;CLC$UTCS : DESCn11'IlO:i: I! caring Transcripts dated 11 19.7h lio ltr of trans rec'd v/ bearing transcripts... thru L7G I' ale 20.5. _ 1;o. of cys rec'd p h0 eNrd Remoire P]MIT li.C : lionticello Plant FCP, /.CTI C:; /I:. 'C.J'. r

                                                                                             ' TI C';                         I1m           11_10 7h                     __ _
                                   ;OLLER . . .DLYOU::3. . .:'.001,F . . .DE'.;) 5 E . . . P,PAIT.'3. ;

FIL

w. . . w /c n - .. .

                                                                                                     /yQ'" p.e-
                                                                                                     ,c.

r N \ _ J 1, " l e$ e .. t

i. y **

                                                                                                                       * /;f /f# ;          j
                                                                                               \m                   -

e(rm. = 9 p , z)

                                                                                                         ,s                                  ,

e\f v**!s5[ Qgha s.,rJ IM g

                                                                                                          - )7 7-g $#

-}}