ML20127H253

Initial Decision Authorizing Provisional Licensing of Full Power Operation.* Preliminary Statement

ML20127H253
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	01/15/1971
From:	Deale V, Geyer J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 9211180460
Download: ML20127H253 (54)

Text

,

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION g In the Matter of )

)

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-263

)

(Mor.ticello Nuclear Generating )

Plant, Unit 1) )

INITIAL DECISION AUTHORIZING Tile PROVISIONAL LICENSING OF FULL POWER OPERATION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This proceeding involves the application of the Northern States Power Company (NSP or applicant) for a provisional operating license for Unit 1 of its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. This facility, with a single-cycle, forced circulation boiling water reactor, is designed to operate at steady state power levels up to 1670 megawatts

! the rm al. It is located in Wright County, Minnesota on a site partially l

in that county and partially in Sherburne County, Minnesota.

2. The initial application for all necessary licenses to con-struct and operate the facility, dated August 1,1966, was filed with the Commission under section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The application for a 'provistorial construction permit, included amendments 1 through 8. After the application was reviewed by the AEC regulatory staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactors Safeguards (ACRS), a public hearing was held before an atomic safety and licensing board to consider whether a provisional constructica 9211190460 711015 DR ADOCK 0500 l

r , .

s, i

pt rmit should be issued by the Con; mission. There were no inter-venors and the proceeding at the hearing was uncontested. Pursuant to an order in the initial Decision by that board, Provisional Construc-tion Permit CPPR-31 was issued on June 19, 1967.

3 Subsequently, applicant submitted amendment 9 to its application, dated November 7, 1968. T.;is amendment, which superseded the application with its first eight amendments, requested a license to operate the facility at its rated power level of 1670 megawatts thermal.

The amendment included the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The FSAR was thereafter supplemented by amendments 10 through 28 to the application. The last amendment, dated July 21, 1970, requested extension of the construction permit to February 1,1971. By order dated July 31,1970, the regulatory staff granted the extension.

4. Since the filing of November 7,1968, the application and the amendments thereto have been under continuing review and evaluation by the regulatory staff. During the course of its review and evaluation, the regulatory staff held numerous meetings with the applicant and made use of studies on specialized subject matters by independent experts, e. g. ,

aic dispersion of gaseous effluents (Air Resources Environmental Laboratory, Environmental Science Services Administration); site hydrology (Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior); ecological effects (Fish and t

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior); reactor vessel stress

-- 4 - --

r T

analysis (Teledyne Materials llesearch); structural design adequacy (N athan M. Newmark Consulting Engineers); and site seismology (lJ. S.

Coast and Geodetic Survey).

S. The ACRS has also reviewed the amended application for an operating license and, after identifying several items for resolution by the applicant and the regulatory staff and making several recommenda-tions, concluded that the plant can be operated at power levels up to 1670 megawatts thermal without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

The ACRS reported on the suitability of the Monticello site in a letter dated M ay 11,1966; on the construction permit application in a report dated April 13, 1967; on the operating license application through amendment 24 in a report dated January 10, 1970; and on changes to the reactor vessel nozzle safeends, as described in amendments 26 and 27,in a report dated June 16,

! 1970.

6. Following review by the regulatory staff and the ACRS of the ,

updated application for an operating license, the Commission, pursuant to the Atomic Energy A et of 1954, as amended, and its own regulations, announced by publication in the Federal Register on March 11, 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 4344) that a public hearing would be held before this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) to consider whether a l

i l

] 9 ,

J I

4

]

i t provisional operating license should be issued to the applicant. The pub- 4

, fished notice of hearing specified seven issues for consideration by the

}

j Licensing Board in arriving at its determination. These issues are identi-1  :

fled by the topical headings in the section herein entitled " Findings of Fact."

.i

7. The notice of hearing set the time and the place of the hearing

! )

and provided for a prehearing conference. it also explained how interested i

j persons could petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding as partics i

- and how persons wishing to express their views at the heari .g could do so 2

without becoming intervening parties under the Conunission's Rules of i

I

Practice governing limited appearances. -

l 8. As scheduled in the notice of hearing, the Licensing Board i i I

l held a prehearing conference on April 7, WIO at f3uffalo, Minnesota. The

]

l conference was open to the public. The i.icensing Board changed the situs of the hearing to United States Federal Courthouses in St. Paul and ,

Minneapolis in response to requests of, and to facilita+e attendance at the-l hearing by, interestcJ people in the . ..... Cities area. The hearing sessions were held on April 28 - May 1, June 15 -_18, August 5_- 7, and November 19,

• l 1

1970, all dates inclusive. Other than when a limited amount -of in camera i

j testimony was taken on November 19,.the hearing sessions.were open to the k.

.l

.pu bli c. .The Licensing Board also held conferences with the pariies on July 14, l -

August 4, September 24, and November 10-11, 1970. These conferences, in - ,

{-  !

+

__~.__..-.m- . - . , _ . , ..._.A.-. .. .. ...m._ ,-4.... ,.,-_..l._._,_ ,,.%,__ , _ , . . , , , . . . , , _r_-.~,,.._.~.#. ._,m,

r '

t 1

i l The United States Fedel al Courthouses in St. Paul and Minneapolis, were

, also open to the public. f 1

O. The State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),

i through its executive director and chief executive officer, John P.

13adalich, and the Assistant Attorney General for MPCA, G. Itobert Johnson, made a limited appearance under section 2.715(c) of the Com-mission's 11tdes of Practice. This section provides to an interested state which has not become a party an opportunity to participate in the proceeding and to introduce evidence, interrogate witnesses and advise the Licensing Board. MPCA of tered no evidence and interrogated no witnesses. It did advise the Licensing Board as follows: .(a) of its views

=

that an operating license should be granted only if it requires the appli-cant to comply with the conditions of the MPCA permit, or in the alterna" tive, that the operating license should be denied until such time as the courts determine the issues in the actions pending over the-state's jurls-diction to limit discharges of radioactive materials into the environmer.t; (b) of its opposition to the applicant's motion for an interim operating l license for fuelloading and low power start-up testing; and (c) of its oppo-sition to the applicant's later motion for an interim license authorizing _

start-up testing and ascension to power.

10. Otner_ limited appearances, under sect 5cn 2. 715(a), . were made by the following persons and organizations:

. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

. - - . . . - = - . _ .. . _ . . .

r t

1 1

6-

I l City of St. Paul (by Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, Assistant j Corporation Counsel);  ;

1

+ St. Paul Planning Board (statement of Mrs. Fred C.

Norton, Chairman, Subcommittee on Prevention i of Radioactive Contamination, presented by Stephen J. G adle r, Bdard member);

i

< St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly (by Anthony DeZiel,

! Business Agent);

Clear Air, Clear Water Unlimited (by John Pegors, Chairman, i f.egislative Committee);

1.eague of Women Voters o( Minnesota (statement of Mrs. O.

, J. Janski, State President);

Minnesota Committee for Environmental Information (by i Peter Kreisman);.

4 Minnesota Conservation Federation (statement of Alan J.

' llolmes, Chairman, Committee on Pollution, presented

{

q by John Pegors);

! Minnesota Environmental Defense Council (statement of its

! Chairman Donald W. Andrews, . presented by Vice

Chairman John Pegors);

j Northern Star Chapter, Sierra Club (by William Cunningham);

M rs. Celeste M. Colson, Cedar . Minnesota

! M rs. Paula Davis, Eagle Bend, Minnesota; and L. '

Mrs. Joseph Waxweiler, Albertville, Minnesota.

~

i ,

- The statements of these limited appearors generally expressed misgivings or outright opposition to the proposed operation of the applicant's plant; they l ,

indicated concern over the plant's impact upon the environment, especit.lly  ;

k the Mississippi River as the source of public water supply; and they

- I j

t e

c wy .t tv -t=w v s-e-i- --

m- y--W--- e ~-----v%m-e- -

=#w -nw .-*z. ---t w J w to.-w -+-- e a w- e+- wM**+_+ m n r s-

• W- e er s

I i

r 7

-7 ,

9 4

recommended a variety of conditions to be imposed upon any operating 1

i

license should one be authorized, l'he appheant and the regulatory staff, 1

i as part of their respective direct cases, presented testimony in response

to the limited appearors. A copy of such testimony, set out in the ,

f .

i transcript of the hearing on August 7, was forwarded to each of the above limited appearors by direction of the Licensing Goard.

4

11. The Licensing Board retelved four timely petitions to J

i j intervene f rom the fc'llowing: Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens i

Association (M ECCA), a non-profit organization of " concerned c'itizens" -

l incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota with members I

{ residing in the Twin Cities area and throughout the State of Minnesota;  ;

l Michael Donahue, a sophomore high school student ' <ing in Elk River, Minnesota, about fifteen miles from the plant site and a few hundred feet i

from the Mississippi River; Messrs, Kenneth Dzugan, Theodore Pepin and l

, George B Burnett, III (Dzugan et al. ), three graduate students at the j University of Minnesota; and Clear Air, Clear Water l'nlimited, a citizens I group which had made a limited appearance in the construction permit proceeding. The Licensing Board granted the four petitioners leave to cure defects in their-original petitions and upon receipt of amended petitions and without objection from the applicant or the regulatory staff, permitted t

i l

I l

\

(

i I-.... ._, , _ . , - . . . . _ , _ , , . , - . , . _ , .;. .,,,_.___,,_.___..,,._,...._....,..,m..--- -

i i p j r

~ ~

l i

l each of the petitioners to intervene except Clear Air, Clear Water Unlimited.

• 1 l

1 That organization was permitted to make a limited appearance. Following

{,

j the initial hearing session, April 28 - May 1,1970, Mr. Donahue did not  ;

I j participate in the proceeding. The active parties in the proceeQing through-i j out the period of the hearing were the applicant, the regulatory staff, MECCA and Dzugan et at l 12. The applicant and the regulatory staff were each represented e

by counsel on a regular basis; MECCA was represented most of the time in l the public hearing and conferences by one or another of two attorneys from l

l different law firms; to the extent of his participation in the proceeding, i

Mr. Donanue represented himself; and Messrs. Dzugan, Pepin and Burnett

! i

[ represented themselves, with one or another or two of them representing all three on most occasionu,

13. With MECCA and Dzugan et al. opposing the proposed provisional l

l operating license, the proceeding is a contested one within the meaning of-I section 2.4(n) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

p - .

i

(

i ,

! , *See Licensing Board's " Order Granting and Denying Petitions for 4

f Leave to' Intervene, " dated April 8,1970. The petition of Clear Air, Clear i

i Water Unlirmted was denied because of its failure to set out contentions in reasonably specific detail as required under 10 CFR 2. 714(a). Mr. Donahue's l petition was granted on a two to one vote by the members of the Licensing i Board, the Chairman being in the minority.

t

[=

l 1 L  !,

I L..., _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . ._ _ __._._m _...___

T

! r 4

y i l .

f I ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL CONSIDEfiATIONS i

i i

14. On April 12, 1970 -- five days after the prehearing conference

! on April 7 and two weeks before the beginning of the scheduled hearing on f

l April 28 -- the applicant filed with the Licensing Board a motion for a i

j interim provisional operating license authorizing initial fuel loading and low power startup testing at power levels of five megawatts thermal and without

, s 3

the reactor vessel head in place. This motion was subsequently modified,

! renewcd and updated. The ultimate granting of the motion, following its i

f denial on May 1 because of the then incomplete status of the record, was effected on August 24 by the Licensing Board's " Initial Decision Autho-l l ,;

rizing Provisional Operating License for Fuel Loading and Low Power i

l Start-up Testing. " Pursuant to this Initial Decision, Provisional Oper-i l ating License DPR-22 was issued to the applicant on September 8,1970,

15. On April 24, 1970, the Chairman of the Licensing Board, with the prior approval of the two technical members,' ordered a subpoena to be i

served upon the Director of Regulation calling for the production of specified

(

inspection reports. The ensuing, protracted difficulties and controversies, i

l their impact on the proceeding and their final resolution are immediate i

i subjects of the following documents of record: the Licensing Board's certi-fication of July 6, the Appeal Board's responding memorandum of August 20, and the Commission's related memorandum of August 26; the Licensing Board's submission of rulings of 0ctober 6, the Appeal Board's responding i

i

i lu 1

l i

f j memorandum of October 20,'and the Commis'sion's related memorandum

?

i of October 21; and the Licensing Board's memorandum of December 22 i

16. On July 17, the Chairman under authority conferred on him at ,

i j 10 CFR 2.718 and with the concurrence of the two technical members of the i

i

! board issued an order and memorandum pertaining to discovery and definition i i

! of contentions. In keeping therewith,_ MECCA and Dzugan et al. took

depositions of five members of the regulatory staff on July 27 and of eleven i

! employees either of the applicant or _of its principal contractor, General '

f j Electric Company, on July 30. The depositions, which pertained to the l

i Division of Compliance inspection reports as then avadlable to the parties i

with certain deletions, were incorporated in the evidentiary record without 1

objection at the hearing on August 5.

l 17. At the board's conference with the parties on September 24 --

, i at a time when the controversy over the AEC inspection reports was still l unsettled and when the hearing record was still open -- the applicant, by _

i motion, sought the Licensing Board's authorization for operation of its '

!  ; plant at power levels up to 88% capacity but in no event less than a peak l , level of 50% capacity, In presenting its motion to the Licensing Board, l applicant's counsel indicated that the motion, which contemplated opera-1 tion of the plant with the reactor vessel head in place, was made in the

i j context of the anticipated early readiness of:the plant to operate beyond I l

; the then authorized peak power level of 5 megawatts thermal without the i

! i i i i

i 1

q 1

- 0 11 -

! l <

> (

i reactor vessel head in place. In its answer to the motion, the regulatory i

. staff had no objection to the Licensing Board authorizing the proposed I

! ascension in power so long as provision was made for certain items j identified by the AEC Division of Compliance to be performed, com-pleted or resolved by me applicant. In their joint answer, MECCA and i

i Dzugan et al. opposed the applicant's motion because of concern over i the incompleteness of the record and possible violation of a permit 1

l issued by Minnesota Pollution C'ontrol Agency (MPCA). The answer e

filed by MPCA, as a limited appearor, argued that it would not be proper l for the Licensing Board to grant the applicant's motion prior to comple-

}

tion of the hearing.

18. After consideration of the record of the hearing (closed Novem-

{ ber 19) as well as the post-hearing filings of proposed findings and conclasions, the Licensing Board, by order of D'ecember 24, . announced its conclusions

! with respect to the pending issues in the notice of hearing and its deter-

{ mination to issue an Initial Decision authorizing the granting of a license to l

the applicant for full power operation of its plant (1. e., at power levels not i

, in excess of 1670 megawatts thermal). Such a license was identified as

> s i (

, 3 one in substantially the form of the provisional operating license at Staff 1

1 i

Exhibit 1, as corrected and revised. Further, pending the preparation i

of its initial Decision in final form, the Licensing Board authorized the i

j Director of Regulation to amend the applicant's provisional operating license I

+

(authorized by the Licensing Board on August 24 and issued on September 8)

,- w-mw----,c-- - - , - w- T-v- v- yra--m -w w r d * -n--rs+-my ys

l 1

1 l

f 12 -

l-i so as to permit the applicant to operate its plant at power levels up to 500 j f

l megawatts thermal and with the reactor vessel head in place. According i

to the December 24 order, the Director of Regulation's amending authority e

i was conditioned on his satisf action as to the readiness of the applicant to I

l proceed with the operation of its plant at the higher power levels and on the i

absence of any inconsistency between the provisional operating license as >

i amended and the form of the full power operating license referenced in the j order.*

1

• By a written communication dated December 30, 1970 to the l

l Chairman of the Licensing Board, Dzugan et al. objected to the i l

December 24 order. Relating the order to the applicant's motion of '

j September 24 (as orally modified that day at.the Licensing Board's-

conference with the parties), wherein applicant sought interim

( authority to operate its plant up to 1469 megawatts thermal but in no l event less than a peak level of 835 megawatts thermal, the inter-

! venors contended that the Licensing Board "should either. grant the relief requested or none at all. " The Licensing Board regards the-l objection of the hitervenors as being without merit or substance.

Referring to 10 CFR 2. 762, the regulatory staff filed with

! the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board its exceptions, dated

! December 31, to the December 24 order and requested that the order

( be stayed pending the issuance of the Initial Decision. The thrust of l the regulatory staff's argument was twofold: first, the authorization l provided for in the December 24 order is appropriate only in an Initial

{ ,

Decision and second, the order did not meet the formal regulatory

j requirements for an Initial Decision.

l

On January 4,1971, applicant filed with the Atomic Safety

and Licensing Appeal Board its reply to the ragulatory staff's excep-

• tions to the Licensing Board's order. Applicant's reply, drawing-l upon statutory and case law, pressed the point that the authorization l

under the December 24 order was legally valid and urged that the

• l Appeal Board promptly deny the regulatory staff's request for a stay '

j of the order.

i i ,

At the time of the filing of this Initial Decision, the Appeal Board had not ruled on the regulatory staff's request for a stay of the l December 24 order. _

l

-,.---<--.m.- ,-e,,, ,--c 2 .ww-.g+- ir ew 't *r m e v w --f mesew-- e=p=.r--we Em-r e-oii- e - r e== w em -M ee-- e 7 v e--e w -s* u v +i. t era-st-Wg=+-p---*w-='9+w'er eg9 F

'eC*f--+gge'r271-e-*7't--

g e =

i:

I i

ll)HN TIVit 'ATION t W PillM *ll'A l liv 11)EN('M 19 The applicant and the regulatory staff .iointly submitted certain direct evidence which was introduced into the record a-; .loint IGxhibit A.

This .loint 10xhibit A, which was nmended on two occasions by the addition -

of certain clocuments, consisted of 40 ttems. These items were copies of filings by the applicant with the t'ommisson, copies of correspondence be-tween the applicant and the retrulatory staff in connection with the application for a provisional operating license, and certain other documentary materials pertinent to the application.

20. The applicant submitted its direct case primarily on the basis of three ma, lor documents and certain oral testimony. The first of the three documents was entitlnd " Applicant's Summary of the Application for the Provisional Operating License for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant No. 1_," dated M arch _19, 1970. This document was sponsored by seven witnesses -- four from the applicant and three from its contractor, General IClectric Company. The second document was entitled " Description and Evaluation of Plant Features Which May Not Be Complete During Initial Fuel Loading and Low Power Start-up Testing," dated April 10, 1970, It was sponsored by the same seven witnesses-who sponsored-the first document,. The applicant's Vice President-Finance and Treasurer spon-

-sored the third document, " Financial Qualifications of Northern States t .

Power Company," dated March. 26, 1970, i

) .

I j . .

. lI i

21. The other evidence comprising the applicant's case included i

f testimony directed toward inquiries of the Licensing Board and toward 1

considerations raised by persons making limited appearances. In addition, l

i the applicant supported its case by updating and expanding upon information a

f previously presented (including the submission of its plant's emergency l plan). The applicant's case was subject to extensive cross-examination l by the intervenors. Altogether, 3'i persons -- each having special or ex-pert qualification -- testified as -witneues for the applicant, as follows .

1

! (Attachment .\): 18 from the applicant, 12 from General Electric-Company, 1

1 2 from Bechtel Corporation, 2 from Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, i

! I f rom NUS Corporation, 1 f rom Nuclear Services Corporation, and 1 from i

e j St. Cloud State College, Minnesota.

l 22. The principal evidence submitted by the regulatory staff in

i. &

support of the proposed provisional operating license consisted of the l

following: a document entitled "A Safety Evaluation by the Division of l lleactor Licensing, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, in the matter of

! Northern States. Power Company, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, t

Unit 1, . Docket No. 50-263" and supplement No. 1 thereto (both sponsored

)

by four witnesses of the regulatory staff) and the AEC Division of Compliance-inspection reports pertaining to tha construction of.the applicant's plant,

! inclusive of reports on the applicant's primary contractors and exclusive n

4 4

4-e 5.

I

_ . . _ __., _ _ _._.._-,_..,_..__.._.._._..u._._ _ _ . . _ .

I e

of irrelevant and proprietary data. In addition, the regulatory staff provided oral testimony in response to questions raised by persons making limited appearances and to inquiries of the board. The regu-s latory staff also updated its testimony as the hearing moved along. Its witnesses were extensively cross-examined by the intervenors through-t out the course of the hearing. Altogether, the regulatory staff called 15 witnesses as follows (Attachment B): 13 from four of its Divisions -- ,

7 f rom Compliance, 4 from Reactor Licensing, _1 from Reactor _-Standards, and 1 from Radiation Protection Standards -- 1 from Parameters, Inc.

(consulting engineers) and 1 from Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, North Carolina. Each of the regulatory staff's witnesses possessed spe-cial or expert qualifications.

23, MECCA's direct case consisted of oral testimony of four witnesses (Attachment C). Two. of the witnesses had special technical qualifications. The other two witnesses testified as lay citizens, repre-senting their organization and offering a variety of general opinions and questions. MECCA's witnesses were cross-examined by the applicant, the regulatory staff,- M r. Donahue, and Dzugan et al.

I

{ 24. Neither M r.1)onahue nor lu.up,an el al prouvoicel any.

k 4 direct evidence.

25. The Licensing Board examined witnesses throughout the i hearing.

i .

i I

4 e e p s

! I ti FINDINGS OF FACT (in accordance with the noticed issues)

) .

- Issue Number 1 1

! Whether the applicant has submitted to the

! Commission all technical information required by Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-l 3 31, the Act, and the rules and regulations of j the Commission to complete the application for the provisional operating license,

26. The Northern States Power Company's application as here-1 tofore described included the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report required under $50,34(b) of the Commission's regulations. The application i

and the record of the present proceeding contain extensive information about

?

the plant, including data and information about the site and the basis of its i

j suitability, the design and construction of the plant, qur.lity assurance and 4

f j

quality control programs, engineered safeguards, design features not fully i

i i

developed and evaluated at the. time construction was authorized, proposed technical specifications pursuant to $50.36 of the Commission's Regulations, I

emergency plans, the applicant's technical and financial qualifications, and r

the plant's bearing upon the comnjon defense and security and the health and safety of the public. At the time the construction permit was issued, cer-L tain uesign features of the plant were identified by the staff and the ACRS J i as areas requiring further information to be developed and submitted.

These areas, relating to flood protection, effluent control during periods r

4 4 *

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

.. -.-.m., . . _ , _ - ~ . , . . . . - - . . . . , _ . . . . . - . , _ . , . . , . - , ~ . . . - . . . - . .

^

l 'i

(

)

I l of minimum river flow, seismic design, tornado protection, reactor vessel 4

1 st ress analysis, isolation valve testing, and on-site emergency power i

supply, have all been included in applicant's FSAR. The regulatory staff's i

f testimony at the hearing, including its own safety evaluation, confirmed 1

the sufficiency of the applicant's data in terms of ('ommission requirements.

Issue Number 2 i Whether construction of Unit I has proceeded and there is reasonable assurance that it will be com i pleted, in conformity with Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-31, the application, as amended, *

[ the provisions of the Act and the rules and regu-i lations of the Commission.

l 27 The regulatory staff's Division of Compliance has followed ,

i

closelv the progress 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 inspection activities, ' conducted both at the site and at the fabrication shops, included review and audit of I

applicant's quality assurance and quality control programs, inspection i

i of quality assurance and control records, observation of construction work in progress, review of construction procedures, observation of

(

L major testing, review of functional testing programs, and review of prepara- ,

ll tions for facility operations. The nature and extent of the regu?atory staff's attention to the plant's construction, and its knowledge with respect thereto, f

were indicated by the testimony of regulatory staff witnesses responsible i

,. for AEC surveillance of the plant's construction and by 49 inspection l

I

m. . .

g. . _ .- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _.._

reports of the Division of Compliance on the Monticello plant construction which, except for certain deletions, were made cart of the evidentiary record. These reports covered inspections during the period beginning October 26, 1966 and ending October 2,1970. The staff witnesses con-firmed the testimony of the applicant's witnesses that the construction of the Monticello plant has gone forward and will be completed in accordance with AEC requirements.

,. 28. During the course of construction of the containment, a crack was discovered on January 18, 1968, in the containment vessel at a location where an insert plate was welded to the shell. The evidence shows that an extensive program was employed to isolate the cracking, establish its cause, and to make the necessary repairs. Tne cracking was found to be surface type cracking caused by the presence of hydrogen, high residual shrinkage stresses, discontinuities at the surface and high hard-ness. Non-destructive testing methods showed no indication of subsurface cracking in areas where surface cracking had been detected or in areas

't which were free of surface cracks. The cracks were repaired and the containment was inspected and tested to assure that no crhcking resulted from the repair procedure and that the cracks were properly repaired.

The repair and evaluation procedures were independently reviewed and 3 found acceptable by the Hartford Steam Boiler and Inspection Company i .

and the regulatory staff.

1

Issue Number 3(i)

Whether there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the provisional operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public.

Plant Site 2 9-. 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 in Wright County (on the west bank of the River). The plant is located in Wright County. The site is 4

about 22 miles southeast of St. Cloud (1960 population 33,815) and 30 miles northwest of Minneapolis. The nearest residence is offsite, approximately a

2750 feet from the plant. The area surrounding the site is primarily agricultural. A low population zone with a radius of one mile includes a population of about 25. The minimum exclusion zone. radius is 1600 feet.

The plant design takes into account meteorological, hydrological, ground water, and soil conditions, as well as the possibility of credible earthquakes, windstorms, tornadoes, and floods.

30. That portion of the Mississippi River which traverses the site is part of the restricted area for purposes' of determining offsite dosages.

1m6 The evidence shows no credible circumstances under which an individual e

could remain on the river in the area of the plant long enough to receive a dose from normal operation in excess of .5 rem. The local sheriff has advised the applicant that in emergencies 'ne will remove persons fron the river area.

l Features of the Plant

31. The nuclear steam supply system is a General Electric boiling water reactor design which is identical in most features to Common-s wealth Edison Company's Dresden Unit 2, recer.tly licensed by AEC for operation, and is similar to other opcrating boiling water reactors. The reactor is a single-cycle, forced circulation, boiling water reactor pro-ducing steam for direct use in the steam turbine. The reactor will be fueled with slightly enriched uranium dioxide pellets sealed in Zircaloy fuel rods. Reactivity control is provided by movable control rods and variable recirculation flow. The primary containment system, consisting of a steel drywell and a steel pressure suppression chamber, is designed to accommodate the pressures and temperatures which would result from, or occur subsequent to, a failure equivalent to a double-ended, circum-ferential 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 building and the standby gas treatment system, are to minimize ground level release of airborne radioactive materials, and to provide for controlled, filtered, elevated release of the reactor building atmosphere under postulated design basis accident conditions. The reactor building provides secondary con-

, tainment during periods when the~ primary containment system is in service, and primary containment during periods when the primary containment is i~ open.

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ __J

t s

32. In addition to the primary and secondary containment systems, the plant has a number of safety features designed for limiting the con-

sequences of accidents, including the highly unlikely loss-of-coolant acci-dent. The principal safety features include the emergency core cooling l

4 systems, the reactor standby gar; treatment system, a reactor protection j

, system designed to automatically shutdown the reactor when pre-t established safety limits are reached and a 9tandby liquid control system

! which provides backup reactivity shutdown capability in the unlikely event I

that shutdown cannot be accomplished by control rods alone.

{

33. The reactor primary coolant system includes the reactor

! pressure vessel, the two-loop reactor coolant recirculation system, and j the main stearr. piping. The water circulating in the primary system is used 1 .

both to cool the reactor core within the pressure vessel and to produce steam for the production of electrical power.

l 34. With respect to the capability of detecting a loose object in 1

the core which might interrupt the coolant flow patterns, applicant testified that the velocities of the coolant at the bottom of the vessel were too slow to carry objects of significant size up into the core region. The testiroony indicated that if a " postage stamp size" piece of rnetal coubt noine how t ool 4 its way into the reactor, it might be carried up into the core and causo local coolant blockage around a specific fuel rod. It was further testified' that such blockage could conceivably interrupt the coolant flow enough to-i l

i -

i m-+,, 7 n-w~ ~ -

e,-ow,---- , , , ,,me ,,wo-me..,m, ,,,,e.- a ,,,,,,..e.,..,wse-,,w-g--,-,-,L-, - ,.esw,,,n-.,m-,

L d

22 -

d cause the rod to fall. According to the testimony, the failure of one or two rods would release no significant amount of radioactivity into the primary coolant. Applicant also noted that calculations and tests show M 'he flow tha . 2gh a channel would have to be blocked by 80 or 90

.e nt to produce fuel clad failure. Should radioactivity in the coolant

.ed specified limits, the steam line radiation monitors would detect f a cause the reactor to shut down

35. To ens"re the integrity 'of reactor systems, including the primary coolant system, the components are fabricated and inspe(....d in accordance with applicable engineering codes and standards which j incicle provisions for detailed quality control measures taken during i f abrication. . t..aony by applicant, oli woss-examination, revealed inat the welds cf the pressure vessel were inspected by various scientific methods and that the cessel was fabricated, inspected and pressure tested 1 in such c. <.x aer as to be certified and stamped under the A. S. M. E. code j for nuclear vessels, i

Liquid Effluents

{

, j 36. Liquid wastes generated by normal operation of the plant are collected and processed through a radwaste system which removes radio-active contaminants by filtration and/or ion exchange demineralization.

4 Radioactivity is also reduced through decay during storage in holdup tanks.

I

- Liquid wastes with high levels of radioactivity, after processing to remove 4 l 1-

.7, , ..%. v. .,.,-..wy . y---~ , __ py ,y,, ,, ,w. ., .yg.

, ,w...- c , m . , ,,., . , . , . -, yeei ..,.7, . - ,,

I . . . .. .

1 e

i

-~23 -

)

i  ;

contaminants, are returned to the plant condensate storage system fo:

,i reuse within the plant. Liquid waste with low levels of radioactivity is processed, stored, sample'd, analyzed, diluted, and periodically re-leased into the Mississippi River under carefully controlled conditions ,

t-

! to ensure that allowable concentration limits are not exceeded.

i 3 7. ' The d$ inking wat$r intakes of St. Paul and Minneapolis, the-i nearest public water intakes, are 33 miles and 37 miles, respectively, i

1

f rom the plant. Testimony by applicant _ and the staff indicated that the i

annual average concentration of radioactivity in the discharge canal would ,

be no more than a few percent of. authorized release limits under Part 20 of AEC regulations. There would be further reduction of concentration i

j by dilution in the river. The consequences of the worst possible acci- _

dental release from the liquid radwaste storage tanks or from the con-densate storage tanks to the river at the plant site boundary result in a short-term concentration of radioactivity less than 10 CFR Part 201!mits.

~ ~

Gaseous Effluents - - - - - -

} 38. - Radioactive gases generated during normal operation of the s

i plant will be stored to provide radioactive decay _ time, filtered, diluted, f' .. -

. . , and finally released through the plant offgas stack which provides further 1

dilution in th'e atmosphere. Releases will be monitored and controlled to I ensure that the radiation dose at the theoretical point of highest exposure L 1 3

g i

. . _ - ,,_.. . . _ , _ . . . . , _ . - - . - . - , . . _ _ .. ._.-;..._ .s,_.._.._.,._,.._,_..

o 4 1 offsite, i.e. , at the site boundary, will be below the limits of Part 20 0

~

of AEC's regulations. Exposures further away from the site boundary will be still less. A continuous monitoring system automatically 4

terminates release when preset limits are reached.

39, 7he dose calculations of the app'.icint and of the regulatory

~

i i

staff take into consideration the entire spectrum of meteorological condi-tions at the plant site. Applicant's testimony ir_dicates that gaseous efflu-ents can be released even during periods of the most adverse and unstable atmospheric conditions without exceeding 10 CFR Part 20 limits.

40. ' Technical testimony bk the applicant indicated that offsite

.ccumulation, resulting primarily from deposition of particulate materials with long half lives, constituted a negligible contribution to offsite dose.

' Technical testimony by the staff indicated that their calculation did take into account the accumulation of fission products with long half lives, i

and that if any accumulation did occur it would be promptly detected by the applicant's radiological monitoring program, e

i

41. The applicant's offsite dosage calculations are performed using a mathematical model or formula derived from emprical observations.

Applicant expressed confidence in the model and testified that the model i

~

used is m analytical model developed at AEC's Hanford Laboratory on the basis of experimental results observed over many yeoes and verified by

\

' i using meteorological. off-gas, and dose measureraents made at the Brook--

haven National Laboratory. During operation of the plant, the calculated 5

~ . . . - _ . _ __ _ . . _ _ __ _ ________

4 .-

a

, models will be verified by actual measurement under applicant's radiation d

! monitoring program, s

42. Applicant testified that the possible chemical alterations in

+

l molecules which incorporate tritium had been considered by the Inter-4 i , national Commission on Radiological Protection when it established the

. 1 s

i standards for tritium intake and that the effects are negligible and of no importance in determining the radiological significance of tritium.

Environmental Monitoring i

43. The applicant initiated in June 1968, an environmental radiation monitoring program to determine and evaluate the effects of the plant's operation on the environment. The program will continue through plant

, startup and operation, and includes the collection and analyses of samples of air, water, soil, vegetation, milk and aquatic life. Studies are being conducted in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Health, and l the applicant has taken into account the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. Annual reports of j-the monitoring program are widely distributed to Federal and State i

~i

agencies and are available to other interested parties. Applicant _ is also condneting a companion ecological monitoring program dedicateu to the

. i stusly of the .tquatic environment on a six-mile stretch of the Mississippi i

itiver in the vicinity of the plant. The first program includes the study of 1

concentration of radioactive materia'a 3 aquatic life, and the ecological-r t y+ m- ar- -c-/+- sg-w p,e +-

1 d

4 program will include monitoring and analysis of the effects of thermal discharges on the aquatic environment,

~

q j Issue Number 3(11)

Whether there is reasonable assurance that the

activities authorized by the provisional operating

license will be conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Commission.

T

44. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the appli-

. cant will not comply with rules and regulations of the Commission in the operation of the Monticello plant. Applicant's testimony' indicates determination to meet Commission requirements and the regulatory staff's i testimony affirms that applicant has a very good record of responsiveness i

and cooperation in attending to and resolving concerns expressed by the

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the regulatory staff itself.

The regulatory staff is charged with continuing responsibility for securing

compliance with Commission rules and regulations.

i i

Issue Number 4 Whether the applicant is technically and financially.

l qualified to engage in the activities authorized by-the provisional operating license in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commission.

45. Applicant has gained useful nuclear experience in the construction and operation of the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant. The-supervisory staff chosen to manage operations at the Monticello plant

, i i l.

l=

4

(

is composed of formerly licensed reactor operators at the Pathfinder plant and the qualifications of the key supervisory and professional personnel meet the " Proposed Standards for Selection and Training of Personnel for 1

Nuclear Power Plants, " Draft No. 9, July 3,1969, prepared by the American Nuclear Society Standards Committee.

, 46. The applicant estimates an average annual cost of $8. 8 l 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 4

and to enable it to engage in the activities authorized by the full power l provisional operating license. .

Issue Number 5 i

Whether the applicant has furnished to the Com-mission proof of financial protection in accordance with 10 CFR Part 140 " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements", of the Commission's regulations.

47. Applicant has satisfied its present financial protection requirements under 10 CFR Part 140 of the Commission's regulations by furnishing to the Commission proof of' financial protection in the amount of $1,000,000, as needed for the period fuel is stored on the site, in the form of a Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association Policy No. NF-174, and by entering into Indemnity Agreement No. B-42 i

.with the Commission applicable to fuel storage. . Applicant has obtained l letters from the Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association and i

i

, . = - --

Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters committing to provide aggregate financial protection of up to $82 million, the maximum amount required by the Commission's regulations for a full p wer license for a f acility of the size of the applicant's.

Issue Number 6 4

Whether there is reasonable assurance that Unit 1 4 will be ready for initial fuel loading with nuclear l

fuel within 90 days from the date of issuance of the provisional operating license.

48. This issue is moot. Fuel loading was initiated on f

September 8 and completed on September 23 under a license issued by

' ~ ~

~

the Director, Divislsa cf Reactor'Ilden~ sing,'

s p'u'rsuanf t6 auth'orization

! by this L,icen' sing B'oarciEitsTni,tfal Decision"~of' August 24, 1970.

Issue Number 7 e

Whether issuance of the provisional operating license under the terms and conditions proposed l

[- will be inimical to the common defense and security or to the nealth and safety of the public.

49. The activities to be conducted under the provisional operating i

license will be within the jurisdiction of the United States, and all of the 4

directors and principal officers of the applicant are United States citizens.

The applicant is not owned, controlled, .or dominated by an alien, a foreign corpocation, or a foreign government. The activities to be conducted do not involve any restricted data, but the applicant has agreed to safeguard i any such data which might become involved in accordance with the

Commission's regulations. Special nuclear material for use as fuel i[

the f acility will be subject to Commission regulations and will be obtained j

from sources of supply available for civilian purposes.

Design Basis Accident

50. In determining the safety of the reactor design, detailed  :

7  :-

s. afety evaluations and analyses were made by applicant and the regulatory staff, and reviewed by the ACRS, to determine the capability of the design to mitigate the consequences of a design basis accident should it occur.

Desiga basis accidents are the worst accidents postulated for the reactor.

The evidence indicates that the regulatory staff's evaluation and applicant's

'l evaluation of the radiological consequences of a loss of coolant accident at the plant take into consideration the fission product release which would I

result from a 100% core . eltdown notwithstanding the fact that a 100% core meltdown is precluded by the incorporation of highly redundant networks .

f of engineered safeguards to cool the core in the event of a loss of coolant l

accident. Safety evaluations by applicant and the regulatory staff indicate

! that the doses which could result from a design basis accident are well 1

within the guideline values of Part 100 of the Commissions regulations.

• 1 l

I *Although the accident doses calculated by applicant and the regu-latory staff were both well within the Part 100 guideline values, the latter's calculated doses were higher than those of the applicant. Testimony by j

both parties explained that the calculations involve the assignment of many parametric values related to the size of the source of radioactivity, trans- l l

port and behavior mechanisms of radioactive mat,erials, meteorological conditions, and dose conversion f actors. In nearly all cases the regulatory l

l staff used more conservative parametric values leading to a higher calcu- l lated accident dose. The regulatory staff's witness noted the conservatism i

of the regulatory's approach and suggested that the applicant's parametric f

values, leading to lower calculated doses,- were probaMy more realistic l

than corresponding values used by. the regulatory staff. 1 1

i

p , , m m .._.m._. 2--.

.. . , - - _ 4 ..m,_.u.& m 2a ._ _ .

'4 i-i  ; .

l 4 i

i l J Such doses would not be expected to cause biological injury to persons in i

i the vicinity of the plant.

! Emergency Plans d

1

51. Applicant has prepared a plan describing the emergency l

l organization and the arrangements to be effected in the unlikely event i

of an accident which might affect the general public.

' Emergency com-i i munications have been installed to provide uninter rupted liaison betwetn i onsite personnel and offsite support groups and agencies. Applicant has s 4

made emergency arrangements with responsible agencies of the State

. of Minnesota and with appropriate local officials, and has made emer-l gency medical arrangements with a local hospital for treatment of con-4 i taminated patients.

52. Applicant's emergency plan had been submitted as a l part of the FSAR. Applicant introduced as an exhibit in these proceed-i ings detailed procedures which supplement-the emergency plan and which l

I will become a chapter of the plant operations manual. In response to questioning by this Board, the regulatory staff testified that the detailed j

procedurea conformed to the regulatory staff-approved emergency plan, and, further, that the plan and the procedures meet the emergency plan-l

?

- ning guidelines of the Commission's proposed amendment to 10 CFR c

i Part 50 of its regulations, and meet the intent of a draft document which i

.: the regulatory staff had prepared for the use t.f applicants in developing -

l x

4  :

s

~ _, . . _ _.____._.__a,.__. -.

i (

4 their emergency plans. The regulatory staff testified that applicant's emergency plan had been reviewed to determine that its various elements ,

' were 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 damage to property. The i

regulatory staff also testified that the detailed implementation proce-i dures describe the assignment of emergency duties of plant personnel 5

and off-site groups, define classes 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 emer-gency and evacuating off-site personnel, provide details for post-4 accident monitoring of effluents and the environment by the applicant's staff and the Minnesota Department of Health, describe the communica-tions network for on-site and off-site communications, state the role of Jocal authorities if evacuation becomes necessary, describe the plan for traffic control, including detour plan, and include an expanded reentry procedurc which specifies the criteria for reentry of affected i

j areas. ,

. 53. Applicant's calculated doses resulting from a design I

I, - basis accident would not require evacuation of any people outside of I the e.xclusion area. The exclusion area is a fenced area within the o

j plant site over which applicant has complete control. The AEC's more

~

t

4 1

conservative dose calculations would not indicate the need for more 4 than limited evacuation of the Icw population zone, that is, an area I

within a radius one mile from the plant. About 25 people live within -

a ont-mile radius of the plant. Evacuation plans have been formulated and will be coordinated by the offices of the Wright County Sheriff, the 4 4 i

i Sherburne County Sheriff, and the Monticello area Civil Defense Coordinator.

54. Testing of the applicant's emergency plan according to 4

AEC Division of Compliance inspectors was satisfactorily completed 4

during the first week of September. The tesung included verification of all communication channels and simulation of an activity release.

J s

An evaluation test was conducted with plant and suppuriing personnel performing their assigned functions la accordance with the embrgency

plan. Evacuation was effected quickly and in an orderly fashion.

i i- Plant Security

55. A cce  % the applicant's plant will be safeguarded by a

! number of fences. - Gates in the security fence will be locked when unattended. The locks and keys at the plant site are part of a non--

- commercial keyway system established by the lock manufacturer specifically for the applicant. Protection of plant facilities will also be_ '

available from local law enforcergent authorities and National Guard' s g

^

personnel, when appropriate. The design of the plant structures and a

t-J

= ,,v - , - . _ .+.-.e- . .,w- ,. , ,, .-# .y 3 ,,%y,i y- . . , , , ,- ,

4 l

equipment which are important to the safety of the plant include allowance 1

~

for the effects of floods, tornadoes, and earthquakes. These design measures taken together with the inaccessibility to the reactor vessel and primary system piping during operation and the redundant safeguard systems inherently provide substantial protection against any public safety l consequences of possible induetrial sabotage or civil aisturbances.

2 l NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969

56. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Commission's implementing policy statement effective at the time of the hearing *, thb Commissioii issued a detailed statement of the environ-I mental considerations involved in the applicant's plant. Such statement 4

1 was introduced into the record of this hearing as Staff Exhibit 2.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE PARTIES i

57. There were two occasions for the parties to submit pro-posed findings and conclusions concerning authorization to the applicant of a full power provisional operating license -- once on August 24 and again on November 30, 1970. The applicant presenteel proposert finilings and coaclusions on each occasion. The later submission superumlol

• Appendix D,10 CFR Part 50, 35 F. Reg 5463 (April 2,1970).

t 1

-^"~

e I

i

{4 -

l  !,

i E

the earlier one. The regulatory staff filed proposed findings and con-clusions on August 24 and amended them on November 30. MECCA and Dzugan et al. submitted a joint argument on August 24, which included certain proposed findings and a conclusion, and a similar, supplemental -t l joint argument on November 29. M r. Donahue submitted nothing by way of a post-hearing filing. The proposed findings and conclusions of the ,

j applicant aid those of the regulatory staff are in accord with this initial ,

i Deci sion. The joint arguments of MECCA and Dzugan et al. are not.  ;

s

58. The joint argnments, which have been rejected by the Licensing Board, seek to support the conclusion that there should be

j. ,

no authorization of the provisional operating license. To a notable extent, the joint arguments dwell on irrelevant considerations. They also rely h heavily on opinionated statements of the intervenors, on allegations not supported in the record, and on overdrawn conclusions and unwarranted i generalizations. More particular consideration of the joint arguments of AIECCA and Dzugan et al. is set out at Attachment D.

i

[ .]

4 i

1 i

-m.- , . , . ,,.m- m

1 s. , g

\

h .

CONC LUSIONS 1

59. As indicated in its order of December 24,1970, the Licensing Boaru has concluded that --

( . . . _ _ . _ . .

a. The applicant has submitted to the Commission

)

all technical information required by Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-31, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the rules and regulations, of the Commission to complete the application for the provisio.nal operating license;

b. The construction of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, has proceeded, and therc is reason- .

able assurance ther it wiu be completed in conformity with Provisional Cc,nstruction Permit No. . CPPit-31, the application, . as amended, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the rules and regulations of the Commission.

4 c. There is reasonable assurance (i) 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 ,

t .

-willbe conciuc.ted in compliance with the rules and I regulations cf the Commission;-

j.

)

i .

i 1 l

7 i

i i

A

d. The applicant is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by the provi-i sional operating license in accordance with the rules

, and regulations of the Commission; i

e. The applicant has furnished to the Commission i

proof of financial protection in accordance w!m i

10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection and i

s Requirements and Indemnity Agreements" of the d

i Commission's regulations; and 4

I f. The issuance of the provisional operating license i under the terms and conditions proposed will r.ot 1

l be inimical to the common defense and security j or to the health and safety of the public.

I The provisional operating license referenced in the above conclusions is l a license, covering full power operation (i. e. , up to steady state powe r i levels not in excess of 1670 megawatts therinal), in substantially the form i

of the proposed license at Staff Exhibit 1, as corrected and revised, inclu-i sive of the cited Technical Specifications. '

i ~

4 60. The board further concludes that tie following issue in i the notice of hearing is moot, namely, whether there is reasonable t

assuratae that the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1,-will ,

be ready for initial loading with nuclear fitel within 90 days of the

.j t

1 i

E

l

y

. +

t j .-

37 -

i~

l I date of issuance of the provisional operating license. As noted earlier, loading the plant with nuclear fuel was begun on September 8 and com-i 1

{ pleted on September 23, 1970.

i . . . -

61. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations, IT IS_ ORDERED that --

a, Upon verification by the Director of Regulation that I the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, "

4 i has been completed in conformity with Provisional Construction Perm.it CPPR-31, the application, as i amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules l and regulations of the Commission, and upon his l receipt of proof that the applicant has provided finan-cial protection in the amount required by the Com-mission's regulations, the Director of Regulation is authorized to issue to Northern States Power Com-pany a provisional operating license in substantially the form of the proposed license at Staff Exhibit 1, as corrected and revised, such license to super-sede the one quthorized by the Licensing Board on l  ! August 24 and issued on September 8,1970; and 4

n,- e,m w-w-mv -cee- - nu, -- ,.,--e n- a + - ++,,,--,--v,en

e i j -i -j

. s )

I i l

, 1

i

b. In accordance with paragraph (e)'of section 50. 57 of i

! the Commission.'s regulations as of the timesof the j notice of hearing,* this Initir1 Decision shall become i'

l effective ten days after its issuance subject to (1) the

} review thereof and further decision by the Atomic

! Safety =>?d Licetising Appeal Board, upon exceptions filed by any party, and (ii) such order as the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board may enter upon

]

suc'1 exceptions or upon its own motion within forty-five (45)' days after the issuance of this Initial Decision. **

i

• As in effect at the time of the notice of hearing on March 9,1970,

section 50,57 pertained to " provisional" operating licenses like the subject

license of this proceeding. Amendments to Commission regulations,

effective April 30, 1970, eliminated " provisional" construction permits j ano " provisional" operating licanses for production and utilization f acilities. "

j However, the amendments do not apply in proceedings for such provisional permits or licenses if the notices of hearing or notices of proposed issuance j had been published prior to March 31, 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 6644, April 25, i 1970). Paragraph (c) of the revise.d section 50. 57, which is entitled

" Issuance of Operating License" is identical in language to paragraph (e)

of the earlier section 50. 57, 1

• • By this order, the Licensing Board grant _s the applicant's " Motion

! , for Expedited Effectiveness of Initial Decision Authorizing Full Power

, j Operation, " dated November 30, 1970, and rules against.the joint objec-l tion of MECCA and Messrs. Dzugan, Pepin and_Burnett, as set forth in

_ , their statement of oppo.sition to the motion, dated December 7,1970.

'1--

I The readiness or near readiness of the applicant's plant to begin to ascend to full power operation is sufficient " good cause'" for the granting of the

applicant's motion. The statement of opposition by the intervenors affords -

- no basis'for the . Licensing Board to deny applicant's motion.

r F

~ -

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

, i

-3D-APPEAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

62. Within twenty (20) days after service of this Initial Decision,

}

J any party to this proceeding may file exceptions to this Initial Decision and a brief in support of thenk with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. Copies of such exceptions and brief shall be served on all other parties. Further, any party to this proceeding may file a brief in support of or in opposition to exceptions filed by any other\

party within.

- ten (10) days after the service of exceptions. The foregoing time sched-ule is prescribed at section 2.762 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The Rules of Practice, 10 CFR Part 2, include additional information I about adminis rative appeal and review procedures applicable tc this i

Initial decisioa.

63. Because of illness, Dr. Eugene Greuling did nc'. partici-pate in the preparation or issuance of this Initial Decision, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

' bh

) '

_, John C. G yer (

[

// z & 14 Valentine BT Deal'e, Chairman ~"~ /

n Washington, D. C.

J anuary 15, 1971

1 i

A T T A ril M F.N T \

4

. Al>PLICANT'S WITNESSidS i

i Lead Witnesses I Northern States Power Company A rthut- V. Dienhart Assistant Vice President with management i

responsibility for NSP activities in the i licensing of physical plant facilities and in 1 environmental studies associated with such i f acilities, i

! Charles E. Larson Plant Superin+endent, Monticello Nuclear

Generating Plant. ,

Morgan H. Clarity Assistant Plant Superintendent, Monticello l Nuclear Generating Plant.

l I Charles J. Ross Nuclear Engineer, NSP's Plant Engineering i and Construction Department.

( . . . . .

General Electric Company -

(

Joseph B. Violette Project Manager for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.

Carl F. Falk, Sr. Manager, Chemical Process Design, Atomic Power Equipment Department. _

G rover L. Davis Engineer, Atomic Power Equipment Depart-ment, with responsibility for coordinating the preparation of applicant's FSAR and amendments thereto. _

Quality Control Witnesses Northern States Power Company--

l William V. Jokela Assistant Manager., Plant Engineering and '

Constrt;ction Department, having responsibility for qua)ity assurance programs for all NSP l l planty.under construction.

l l

l

, e

• ' .\ TT \('llM l;N T \ C.O I

l i

' Phillip Krumpos Field Engineer, Quality Ase 'se"e Group at Monti' c ello Nuclear Gene w.g Plant.

I James V. Sullivan Quality Assurance Engineer, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.

General Electric Company Lawrence Chockie Technical Consultant, Atomic Power

- Equipment Department.

James J. Fox Specialist in Nuclear Systems, Atomic Power Equipment Department.

Lawrence W. Wolf Design Engineer, Atomic Power Equipment Department.

Others Richard C. Anderson Project Engineer, Bechtel Corporation (current assignment - Monticello plant).

Dr. Alf red Joseph Hopwood Associate Professor of Biology, St. Cloud State College, Minne'sota.

l John W. Lingafelter Vice President, Technical Services, l Nuclear Services Corporation.

Cdward E. Varnum - Director of Corporate Nuclear Quality Assurance, Chicago Bridge and Iron Company.

l ..

< Additional Witnesses Northern States Power Company

't G. F. Johnson Vice President - Finance,-- and Treasurer.

E. C. Ward Director, Engineering, Vice Presidential Staff' Department.

\

j E. C. Glass Manager of Planning.

1

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

i

, . ATTACIIMENT A (3)

[ 1)ouglas Antony Plant Results Engineer, Monticello Nuclear >

i Generating Plant.

I llert W. Clark Environmental Monitoring Programmer, j ,

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.

. Leon R. Eliason Radiation Protection Engineer, Monticello 3

Nuclear Generating Plant.

Kenneth Gelle Senior Mechanical Engineer, having project j engineering responsibilities for Monticello

, Nuclear Engineering Plant.

Gordon Jacobson Plant Results Engineer, .Monticello Nuclear i Generating Plant.

l Ronald Jacobson Plant Chemist, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.

Albert W. McDermid Supervising Engineer, Electric Plant Section, i Power Production Department.

I  !

Marcus Voth Nuclear Engineer, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,

, General Electric Company l

Adolph M. Hubbard Manager of Materials Engineering, Atomic i Power Equipment Department.

Pio W. lanni Manager, Systems Conforming Unit of -

l. Systems Engineering Organization, Atomic Power Equipment Departraent.

( ~' ~ ' ~

Lee Miller Fuels Application GrotI~p Manager, Reactor j - Fuel's and Reprocessing Department, having

, responsibility for the' integration of all l

l activities relating to the fuel of the Monticello

,  ! Nuclear Generating Plant.

i,

. Jack Sherman Quality Assurance Specialist (non-destructive l.

j testing).

John Staley Plant Test Engineer, Atomic Power Equip- ~

ment Department.

t I , _ _ _ - _ . . _ - - . , - - .-- , - _ __.-.,,m...- - , , - , .--. ,, -

--~ - . _ , - _

ATT.\('llM 10NT \ (-h Woodrow A. Williams Manager, Radiological _ Systems Conformance, Atomic Power Equipment Departenent, having responsibility for conducting radblogical and meteorological eilluations relating to reactor safety systems.

Others Charles A. Aronson Mechanical Group Supervisor, Bechtel Corporation.

) Morton 1. Goldman Vice President and General Manager,

. Environmental Safeguards Division, NUS Corporation.

Roger Reedy Manager of Special Structures Design,

. Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, hav'ng.

responsibility for design of nuclear and ,

other pressure vessels.

1 i

t7

i  !

A TT.\Ci tal MN T 11

[ lt K( .ill .ATult Y ST A F F'S WITN KSSMS t ,

1 I

AEC Division of Reactor Licensing 4

a

, Daniel R. Muller Chief, PWR Projects Branch #1.

1 i Irwin Spickler Meteorologist in Site, Environmental, and i Radiation Safety Group.

l _

Dudley Thompson Chief, Operational Safety Branch.

1

! Domenic B. Vassallo Senior Project Leader, PWR Projects Branch # 1.

) AEC Division of Compliance _~

3 l

Boyce H. Grier Director, Region 3

!  ! William J. Collins Metallurgical Engineer, Technical Support Branch.

i Clarence D. Feierabend Reactor Inspector, Region 3.

l Cecil Jones Reactor Inspector, Region 3.

i Edward L. Jordan Reactor Inspector, Region 3.

George Wayne Reinmuth Senior Reactor Inspection Specialist.

( Harold D. Thornburg Senior Reactor Inspector, Region J, l having responsibility for supe rvision of 4

Division of Compliance Inspection Program for 1\lonticello Nuclear Generating Plant.

j '

} N. B. The following states make up Region 3 --

Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, j Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, .

i i i I

~

~ - ~ ~

AEC Division of Radiation Protection Staridards Dr. John V. Nehemias Chief, Technical Assistance Branch j (Environmental Health).

,I i 4

l 1

m ,- , , - - - - , -e , -- ,. , , , , - . .,.-n 4 w e -w., s.,- a,-

(c e k TTM 'llM isNT 14 c.')

AEC Division of Reactor Standards 1.aurido Porse Reactor Engineer.

1 Othe rs John P. Baptist Project Leader, Vertebrate Project, Pollution Studies Program, Radiobiological Laboratory, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, t

Beaufort, North Carolina.

4 Richard Lofy President, Parameters Inc. , consulting engineers.

f i

t a 4 i

e i

4 5

• J f

a 4

1 f

-. , ,.. . , -. , - , , - - . , , , , , - , , - - . , . ,n ,-. . , p. , , , , , ., -e.. , e n. . _ . ,

1. 4 v

' 's

~

Q IMAGE EVALUATION / w Yj/

%)!!* TEST TARGET (MT-3) / '

'a

\\\\\// p' jf7/

Do i

l 1.0 L"

• ', Ndd l,l b

!! l.8 1.25 1.4  ! i.6 i

• 150mm -- -

6" -

c th y 3,,, 4 <&

PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION 'b O 770 BASKET ROAD

{V p P.O. BOX 338 WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 Y ,

(716) 265-1600

^

O O . IMAGE EVALUATION 8 4 Y/,/' **(hi* TEST TARGET (MT-3) /%/ + >,

\\\\\// pp \\ /  ;

I t_ $$$

l,l [

%\l&

l.25 11.4 Pt 1.6 l  !!! _.__

4- 150mm -- >

4 --

6' >

f%4,,

.,j 4*4% 4 4,$ $h v-: ., 4 PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION 'b ^

h 770 BASKET ROAD (t* 3 t?

P.O. BOX 338 .

WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 4 4 (716) 265-1600 I

b '

f O

)

IMAGE EVALUATION / c

[/

/

\//(// *(h? TEST TARGET (MT-3) g k If P

l.0 11

- lll J ,,. 1M3 1.1

^

E k!18e l l 1.25 1.4 l n 1.6 l _._._

! L__--

150mm >

d 6" >

g#' %

n/ %>,,,

h PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION 770 BASKET ROAD P.O. BOX 338

+ 4+

(tl p

WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580  %'1 (716) 265-1600

s qT

..,q$

g IMAGE EVALUATION j q

\g)//

/j 'S TEST TARGET (MT-3) ,g74/ -

g,

$/Y/g}l0 4 4+

<> v l

l.O 11 - -

3$

%2D l,l m.m

• * == \\lll 1.8

!!!c =s=

llll 1.6 Ieif.e.

l

- -- cd1 ii---- ti, .

4 - - - -

150mm - >l l

• 6" >

s O[-

e h

,3,;

PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION

70 BASKET ROAD

% 6

.,~/'

t '.

4

" ~

P.O BOX 338 WEBSTER, NE'N YORK 14580 V' (716) 265-1600

,- - - ATTACliMi;NT C

't i- MECC A- WITNESSES

. Adolph J. Ackerman Resident of Madison, Wisconsin; inde-I pendent consulting engineer (licensed to practice in Minnesota).

f /

Mr s. Shirley K. Hun 6 Resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota; member, MECCA's Board of Directors.

-f Russell J. Hatling Resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota;

.membt r of MECCA; writer by occupation.

Dr. Richard Meierot'.o Member, MECCA's Board of Directors; Ph.D. in fisheries and wildlife, University

+ of Minnesota.

1 4

F l

1 e

-i

{.

~ '

I . ,

i , . ..

ATTAC11M ENT D JOINT ARGUMENTS OF MECCA AND DZUGAN ET AL.

AND LICENSING BOARD'S VIEWS THEREON JOINT ARGUMENT August 24, 1970 Unnumbered Paragraphs On the first page of their joint argument, MECCA and Dzugan et al. objected to the Licensing- Board foreclosing questions about AEC radiation standards. With no reference to supporting evidence, the intervenors expressed their belief that "AEC standards are unsafe and constituted undue risk to the public. "

ihe Licensing Board had no basis fo[ entertaining any inter-venors' challenge of the AEC radiation standards within the terms of the Commission's guidelines for making such a challenge.

• That the .ocus of the hearing was compliance with AEC standards and not the standards themselves was recognized and accepted by Dzugan et al. in their opening statement by Mr. Penin. Further, the intervenors chose not to make an affirmative case against the standards offering no direct evidence of their i own on the subject. The mere statement of opinion by the intervenors is af no evidentiary value. Their effort to probe the basis of the standards through cross-examination of witnesses present for other purposes was properly cut short.

On the second page, the intervenors' comments about the role of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) with respu. to a certain permit being sought by the applicant and also about the pending litigation in the federal court over the rights of states to set stricter radiation standards than those of AEC are inconclusive and irrelevant.' The Liberis'-f ing Board conducts proceedings before it according to rules and regulations and direction of the Commission.

Numbered Paragraphs The editorializing in paragraph 1 about public interest and knowl-4 c lge pe rt ainin;: to nuclear power developments in general and the Monti-cell.* plant in particular is irrelevant.

, Paragraph 2 fails to apprpciate the proceeding before the Licens i

ing Board is an AEC proceeding and not a State of Minnesota proceeding.

g ._

j

• Memorandum, Matter of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, ,

! August b,1969, t

(

1 4

ATTACllMENT D (2) i i i

i

! The intervenors give no account to the fact that the form of the provi-sional operating license considered in the proceeding includes the follow-

! ing provision and that the form of license authorized by the Licensing Board in its Initial Decision on August 24, 1970 contains such provision:

' " Northern States shall observe such standards and requirements for the protection of the envi-

.: ronment as are validly imposed pursuant to i authority established under Federal and State law and as are determined by the Commission to be applicable to the facility covered by this l

provisional operating license. This condition

does not apply to (a) radiological effects since such effects are dealt with in other provisions i

of this provisional operating license, or (b) mat-

! ters of water quality covered by Section 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. "

! This Initial Decision does not affect the continuing applicability of the j foregoing provision.

The subpoena controversy and related matters raised in paia ^

, graph 3 have already received detailed consideration on the record.

See paragraph 15 of this Initial Decision for pertinent references.

? ., . . . - . , . . - - - . - - . - . .

Paragraph 4 notes the usefulness of informatio'n about other nu clear power plants. The point is uncontroverted.

Paragraph 5 restates the intervenors' complaint about being.

l foreclosed from challenging AEC radiation standards, which are based on recommendations which had been developed by the Federal Radiation

, Council and approved by the President.

Paragraph 6 questions a passing comparison by the applicant i of the Monticello plant to Dresden II. The board does not agree that the comparison is improper. See paragraph 31 of this Initial Decision.

~

According to paragraph 7, there exists in the reactor "a sub-stantial defect of design" because of a lack of some kind of system to

~

detect small loose objects in the main pressure vessel. This conclu-sion is without warrant. See paragraph 34 of this Initial Decision.

<  ! Paragraph 8 complains about the lack of 100% _ accessibility to j examine every foot of the longitudingl weld.searns in the reactor pres-

sure vessel. The complaint fails _ to recognize that the security of welds is assured in many ways and is not dependent on every weld being checked in one particular way, and that the applicant's total program of fabricating the reactor pressure vessel has been a sound-4 one. See paragraph 35 of this Initial Decision.

_ ~ - . - . . .

4

+ . a ATTACIIMENT D (3)

With respect to the applicant's calculations c>f radiation dosages

.from stack emissions, the intervenors' objection, at paragraph 9, to the use of scientific work of others developed from experimental results over a period of many years is unrealistic. Further, correction and verification will be provided for through the applicant's radiation moni-i toring program. See paragraph 41 of this Initial Decision. The inter-venors' concern with the method used for the error analysis is without substance in the particular context, the integrity of the containment vessel not being brought into question.

Paragraph 10 evidently confuses particulate filters in the offgas line to the stacks, which have an efficiency of 99. D7% with stand.-by.

gas treatment filters referred to in the Technical Specifications as re-quiring an efficiency of DD% The noted error in an applicant's state-ment regarding Krypton-85 has been corrected by the applicant. The stated belief of the intervenors that the error is "one of the numerous attempts of the Applicant to mislead both the public and the board . . . "

is not justified.

In paragraph 11, the intervenors indicate their opinion that table 9-3-2 of the FSAR was " incredibly deceptive. " Although the cross-examination and the related testimony about the table were con-fused, the Licensing Board found the table itself quite understandable when read in the context of the FSAR. In any event, the Technical Specifications 3. 8(A) establish maximum allowable offgas release rates.

Paragraph 12 expresses the intervenors' opinion regarding the applicability of the concept of a design basis accident to the Monti-cello plant. The design basis accident analyses of the applicant and of the regulatory staff are in keeping with the Commission's regula-tions. See paragraph 50 of this Initial Decision.

Paragraph 13 states an opinion about the desirability of the regu-I latory staff to test the applicant's plant security and indicated distress with the response of a regulatory staff witness in deposition on July 27 that the plant security system had not yet been tested. Checking

- the plant's security system is a responsibility of the regulatory staff and the manner and time of its performance of this responsibility (which is a continuing one) are properly within the regulatory staff's discretion.

Paragraph 14 is at v d ance with the practical consideration noted in the record and the e 1 mission's reactor site criteria per-taining to " exclusion area" v 20 CFR 100.3(a). See paragraph 30 -

i of this Initial Decision.

l. <

.)

l r . .

ATT AUl,lM MNT I) (1) l The intervenors' criticism of the AEC inspection program, sub- .,

ject matter of paragraph 15, is discussed below under the separate head- l ing, " Objection to AEC Inspection Program. "

Paragraph 16 amounts to.an opinion about how operations of the applicant's plant should be monitored. Supporting data are absent, 5

' Paragraph 17 discusses a possible addition of gaseous holding  !

tanks for the Monticello facility, which is not embraced by the applica-tion. The intervenors affered their opinion about the subject, i-With respect to the intervenors' opinion in paragraph 18 regard-ing the experience gained by the applicant at the_ Pathfinder plant, the intervenors offered no supporting evidence.

I With respect to paragraph 19, the concept, "without undue risk to the health and safety of the public, " is a statutory concept which is refined in practical application through implementation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and supporting rules and regulations, including standards of permissible limits for radiation exposure.

I Paragraph 20 states that the intervenors do not believe that the l individual members of the Licensing Board "are or can be impartial."

The intervenors sought no disqualification under the procedure at sec-tion 2.704 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. In citing a " typical

' example of the board's bias," the intervenors mischaracterize the efforts of one of the board members to identify for the record the rea-sons for differences in certain radiation dosage calculations by the applicant and by the regulatory staff. See footnote to paragraph 50 of this Initial Decision.

I Paragraph 21 correctly states that the applicant has the burden of proving the safety of its plant. For the reasons set forth-in the Initial

! Decision, the Licensing Board has-concluded that the applicant sustained I its burden of proof, i

_ Paragraph 22 states the intervenors' objection to the Licensing Board's ruling that what happens to waste fuel after it leaves the Monti-cello plant is not a proper consideration for the hearing and is beyond the Licensing Board's jurisdiction to consider in evidence.

The intervenors' conclusion in their-joint argument of August 24 that the issuance of a provisional operating license should be conditioned upon six specified considerations is evidently _ superseded by the unquali-fied conclusion in their November 29 argument that no provisional oper-ating license should be issued. __ The Licensing Board rejects both conclu--

sions, ~ the authorization provided for in this Initial Decision being amtil y

supported by the record of the hearing.

I

0 -

ATTACHMENT D (5)

JOINT ARGUMENT November 29, 1970 The first two and one-half pages plus (prior to the topical head-ing, " Primary Containment--Leak Rate Test") consist of a variety of opinions and commentary about procedural considerations involved in the controversy surrounding the subpoenaed inspection reports. There is no occasion to dwell further on this controversy. See paragraph 15 of this Initial Decision for pertinent references in the record.

?

The intervenors' stated concern about the leak rate test of the ~

primary containment places undue emphasis upon one method of error analysis as compared with another in terms of the ultimate conclusion about the safety of the Monticello plant. The completion of the leak rate test is a prerequisite to licenstng for operation abo,ve the level of 5 megawatts thermal. The test had not been satisfactorily completed as of the time of the regulatory staff's filing of proposed findings and conclusions (November 30). The satisfactory completion of the test is properly left for the regulatory staff's determination.

The intervenors noted that the seismic recording system at the Monticello facility cannot directly cause a SCRAM. By implication, the intervenors appear to suggest that seismographic instrumentation ought to be able to trigger directly a SCRAM. The record contains no evidence to support such an implied conclusion. The evidence does show that the Monticello facility is designed to ride through any earthquake projected for the area.

Arguing on the basis of a reported deviation by the applicant from the specified fuel loading sequence, the intervenors make an overdrawn conclusion about the adequacy of the training of the applicant's personnel and speculate about the possibility of a serious accident. The evidence shows that both the applicant and the regulatory staff, identified the devia-tion and reacted promptly. The deviation involved no public health or safety hazard.

The intervenors' argument concerning AEC's inspection program and related matters is discussed below under the separate heading, z i

" Objection to AEC Inspection Program. "

i The intervenors express concern about moisture found in some j.'

of the fuel rods. The evidence shows that the problem attendant to mois-ture and fuel rods is a manageable one. Under the present plant setup,

\I operations can take place without hazard to public health and safety and without the maximum permissible limits for radiation exposure being approached. There is no occasion for conditioning operations as the intervenors propose.

i

o., .

ATTACilMENT D (6)

I i

The intervenors make further reference to the controversy sur-rounding the subpoenaed inspection reports. The facts of record con-tradict their apparent complaint that the subpoena was never complied

} with or never answered. Once more, see paragraph 15 for pertinent references to the record.

~ '

The conclusion of thiintervenors in their joint argument of November 29 is that "NO [ sic) operating license should be issued for all the reasons set forth in our conclusions dated August 24,1970 and i based upon additional data obtained since that .me . " As stated before, the Licensing Board rejects this conclusion and affirms that the record of the hearing supports the authorization provided for in this Initial Decision.

OBJECTION TO AEC INSPECTION PROGRAM

, MECCA and Dzugan et al. have contended that the Monticello plant construction has not been adequately tested and inspected by the j regulatory staff in that the regulatory staff does not do any "indepen-t dent" testing and in that the AEC inspection program does not provide for resident inspectors at the reactor site.

The record shows that the AEC program for inspection of

, reactors under construction is directed toward verifying, on a sam-pling basis, that the completed facility conforms to the application, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and implementing regu-lations. At periodic visits to the reactor site and to selected vendor shops, the regulatory staff, among other things:

a. reviews the applicable quality assurance and quality control programs and their imple-

- mentation, including compliance with appli- -

cable codes;

b. reviews quality control records, including j material test reports and non-destructive j test records; i c. observes construction work in process and construction methods,-including concrete -

1 placement, equipment installation, and non-destructive testing;

d. witnesses major construction tests;

(

^ ,

ATTACilMENT D (7) e, reviews operating organization; and

f. reviews testing and operating plans and procedures. ,

Under the AEC inspection program, it is not the responsibility for AEC inspectors themselves to perform tests; it is their responsi-bility to make independent reviews.and evaluations of appropriate records, including non-destructive test documentation, and to check

adherence to AEC requirements for quality assurance programs (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B). The AEC inspectors make independent judgments of test results and the validity of test p-ocedures. For

! example, the record shows that the results of the integrated leak rate

test of the primary containment conducted by the applicant in March

and April 1970 were not considered acceptable by AEC inspectors, and

, the testing had to be performed 'again. As of the time of the filing of l the regulatory staff's amended proposed findings and conclusions on J

November 30, the completion of the leak rate test to the satisfaction of the regulatory staff still had not been accomplished.

~ _ _ _ . . __

No evidence was adduced to support the opinion of the inter-i venors that resident inspectors would necessarily do a better job of inspection than inspectors who make frequent random visits to the site.

There is nothing in the record to challenge the reasonableness of the l Commission's approach or to indicate that its policy for carrying out

an inspection function was not within its statutory discretion. The int'eFvinoi'sTould 's'iinplydo 'it~diffe rently.

In arguing their view about how the AEC inspection function ought to be conducted, the intervenors attempted to move into areas of privileged inform'ation wh'ich' might have been appropriate for the exploration if the inspection program had been on trial. The Licens-

! ing Board thus had occasion to rule that the need of the regulatory staff to keep to itself its own inspection techniques, procedures, instructions, and the like outweighed the need of the intervenors to have disclosure. For the intervenors were doing no more than pur-j suing a proposition which rested on the substitution of their judgment for that of the Commission in the reasonable exercise of its statutory discretion. See the Licensing Board's Memorandum of December 22, 1970.

Aside from the foregoing differences over how the agency ought to conduct an inspection program,'it is noted that AEC inspection per-sonnel concerned with the Monticello plant testified at the hearing and were subject to extensive cross-examination by the intervenors. The inspection reports on the Monticello plant were also part of the record.

l

'w,, , ,

ATTACIIMENT D (8) 4

'~ ~

No evidence was adduced to challenge the7e'gulatory staff's conclusion that the Monticello plant construction co:Jorms with the construction permit, the application and the Commission requ!.rements. . .

Further, it is sufficient for the Licensing 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 Licensing Board is not required to await the resolution of any remaining unresolved

' item prior to issuing its Initial Decision. The authorization herein makes the actual issuance of the provisional operating license contingent upon the regulatory staff's verification of the Monticello plant's comple-tion in accordance with all applicable requirements.

t I

/