ML20127J204

Applicant Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Proposed Initial Decision,Part I,Ordering Issuance of Interim Provisional OL Authorizing Initial Fuel Loading & Low Power Startup Testing

ML20127J204
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/10/1970
From:	Deale V, Geyer J, Greuling E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Shared Package
ML20127J157	List: ML20127J153 ML20127J163 ML20127J180 ML20127J204
References
NUDOCS 9211190229
Download: ML20127J204 (28)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l ATOMIC ENEROY. COMMISSION J

In the 11atter of )

)

1:0RTilERN STATES POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-263

)

' Monticello Nuclear Generating )

Plant, Unit I , )

APPENDIX C APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FIllDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN Tile FORM OF A PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION, PART I, ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF AN INTERIM Pit 0 VISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE AUTHORIZING INITIAL FUEL LOADING AND LOW POWER STARTUP TESTII:0 1

i i

e e

l 4 Y April 10,.1970 i

w .,

.g 9211190229 700412 PDR ADOCK 05000263 G PDR

s

) {, i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENER0Y COMMISSION In the Matter of )-

)

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-263

- )

Monticello Nuclear Generating )

Plant, Unit 1 )

)

APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINOS OF FACT AND C0!!CLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM OF A PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION, PART I, ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF AN INTERIM PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE AUTHORIZING INITIAL FUEL LOADING AND LOW POWER STARTUP TESTIllo PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. On August 1, 1966, Northern States Power Company (applicant) filed with the Commission an application for a l license to construct and operate the Monticello Nuclear Gener-ating Plant with a boiling water nuclear reactor designed to e operate at power levels of up to 1670 megawatts thermal. Fol-lowing a review of the application, including eight amendments thereto, by the Commission's reg;ulatory staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), a public hearing was held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to consider whether a provisional construction permit should be issued by 9

the Comminnjon. There were no intervonora and the hearing was an uncontented proceeding. Pursuant to an order by that Board in its Initial Decision dated June 19, 1967, the Com-f mission's Director of Regulation issued a provisional con-

- struction permit authorizing the construction of the Monticello Nuc1 car Generating Plant, Unit 1, on the Mississippi River in.

Wright County, Minnesota, t

2. The applicant has proceeded to construct the plant and expects it to be complete and ready for fuel loading on or about May 9, 1970. In support of the applicant's re-quest for a license to load the fuel and operate the' reactor i at its rated power level of 1670 megawatts thermal, the appli-cant has submitted Amendments No. 9 through 25 to the applica-tion during the period of November 7,1968 to January 30, 1970.

3 Following review of the updated application for an operating 1$ cense by the regulatory staff and the ACRS, the Commission, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), and its own regulations, announced by publica-tion 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 on April 28, 1970,-to consider I

whether a provisional operating license should be issued to the applicant. The published notice of hearing specified

+

f

___________ _ l

4 3

seven issues for this Board to consider at the hearing. / The notice also specified that a prehearing conference would be held on April 7, 1970, at Buffalo, Minnesota, which, like the hearing, wotid be open to the public.

h I

l# The Commission's notice of hearing published on March 31, 1970, at 35. Fed. Reg. 4344, specified the following issues to be considered at the hearing:

1. Whether the applicant has submitted to the Commission all technical information required by Provisional Construc-tion Permit No.CPPR-31, the Act, and the rules and reg-u1'ations of the Commission to complete the application for the provisional operating license;

2. Whether construction of Unit I has proceeded and there is reasonable assurance that it will be completed, in conformity with Provisional Construction Permit No.CPPR-31, the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission; 3 Whether there is reasonable assurance (1) that the activ-ities 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 con-ducted in compliance with rules and regulations of the Commission;

4. Whether the applicant i: technically.and financially qual-

$fied to engage in the activities authorized by the pro-visional operating license in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commission; 5 Whether the applicant has furnished to the Commission l- proof of financial protection in accordance with 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements", of the Commission's regulations;

, 6. Whether thero.is reasonable assurance that Unit I will be

i ready for initial loading with nucicar 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 inimical to the

. common defense and security or to the health and safety of=

[ the public.

\ <

\ .

4 l

4. Although the Act requires the AEC to hold a public hearing prior to the issuance of a construction permit,S the AEC is not required by law to hold a public hearing for an

'~

/ operating license unless requested by an interested party.1/ In i .

,'  ! this proceeding, however, the AEC elected in its discretion to hold a public hearing "in view of the substantial public interest l

expressed."b!

t i

1 5 The notice of hearing explained how interested j persons could petition for leave to intervene in the proceedings as parties and specified that such petitions must be received by

' I the Commission not inter than April 2, 1970. Petitions for leave to intervene were received from, and granted to:

l

a. Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens i

! Association (MECCA);

b. Mr. Mike Donahue, a resident of Elk River, Minnesota; and

c. Messrs. Kenneth Daugan, Theodore Pepin, and George Burnett, traduate students at the University of Minnesota.E!

S/ Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, $ 189a, 42 U.S.C. $ 2239 3/ _I d_ .

4/

- Notice of Hearing, 35 Fed. Reg. at 4344. :I E/ These propoacd findings do not mention Clear Air-Clear Water Unlimited from whom an amended petition for leave to intervene dated April 8,1970, was received on April 10 and the disposi-tion of which had not been made at the time of filing of this motion. ,

I

- 4_

re-- * -- .-.e .,.w ---,e -e - r= w - -+y+- ,q-m,yg --

yr, .- rv 9-----a.y ----aw-4 rw e pN e-+

i MF.CCA'n contentiono were primarily concerned with anticipated i i radioactive and thermal discharges from power operation, the

{

adequacy of emergency plans and procedures to cope with off-site effectc of plant accidents which might occur after the power i operation ic begun. Mr. Donahue's contentions related to the environmental monitoring program being conducted and the adequacy i of the radiation standards employed to evaluate and limit the plant operation. The contentions of Messrs. Dzugan, et al,

. generally related to the adequacy of certain design features of the plant which are required to protect against accidents which conceivably might occur after the power operation is begun.

l They also related to 11guld and gaseous releases which could 3

occur after the power operation is begun, i

I

6. By motion dated April 12, 1970, the applicant moved that this Board, without necessarily waiting for the com-mencement of the public hearing scheduled for April 28, 1970, issue an Initial Decision ordering the issuance of an interim i

provicional operating license which would-authorize only the l initial fuel loading and low power startup testing at power-levels i up to a maximum of five megawatto thermal without the reactor i <

I vessel head in place. In support of its request, the applicant,

, submitted that:

a. The early loading and low power startup test-i ing were necessary in the public interest to L .

l \

t i

avoid an electric generating capacity deficit

' in the applicant's system which could result in a curtailment of service to applicant's J

industrial and residential customers during the periods of peak electricity demand in the i

a

, summer of 1970.

b. Pending completion of this Board's consider-ation of interveno"s' contentions applic ant committed to prevent release of the low level liquid waste which would be generated during 1

fuel loading and low power startup testing.

During this phase there is no significant pro-

]  ;

I duction of gaseous effluent and there is no risk of any incident causing radiological exposures off-site which could require action i to be taken to protect off-site personnel, r

I c. In view of paragraph b. above, intervenors' contentions do not pertain to the initial fuel loading and low power start *up testing program under the conditions proposed by the applicant.

/

d. There is no matter in controversy with respect

3. 4 to the initial fuel loading and low power startup program and, in accordance with sec-

~

tions VI(b) and VI(d) of Appendix A to 10 CFR

\.

-T- -- - - y,r +-,4- - .sp * ---e--

l 4

J= . >

Part 2 of the Commission's regulations, the

i Board is neither required nor expected to i

duplicate the review already performed by the l

1 regulatory staff and the ACRS as to matters not in controversy, but rather may rely upon the testimony of the applicant and the regula-tory staff, and the conclusions of the ACRS, I l as to such matters.

i e. In any event, the issuance of the requested 1

' order by this Board would in no way prejudice j

• this Board's consideration of the. prescribed

! issues at the public hearing as they relate i

to the issuance of a full power provisional 4

i operating license.

4 7 This Initial Decision, designated for clarification as Part I, is concerned sclely with the applicant's request for an jnterim provisional operating license authorizing initial

fuel loading and low power startup testing. This Board's Initin!

Decision, Part II, concerning the application for a full power provisional operating license, will not be developed until after tile conclusion of these proceedings, including the public hearing on April 28, 1970. .

t i

7-

-v-= y -,- --

4 -p.g.,y9.gangp y,m p. p .p .a ymi_ ,._ym g .,g. 4 g- 9g9,,,.gg g- 9 ,_-,-ppwmy g.*g.,,.. _,m.#

.= . . -

l -. .-

l

\

4 l l TESTIMONY OF THE PARTIES l J l J

8. The applicant has filed testimony under affi-davit consisting of (a) a document ds.ted March 19, 1970, en-1 titled, " Applicant's Summary of the Application for the Pro-I visional Operating License for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant No. 1," (b) a document dated March 26, 1970, entitled

-j " Financial Qualifications of Northern States Power Company --

Testimony of G. F. Johnson," (c) a document dated April 10,1970, i

entitled " Description and Evaluation of Plant Features Which May Not Be Complete During Initial Fuel Loading and Low Power i

Startup Testing," and (d) a document dated April 7, 1970, entitled i l " Requirement for Power Production From Monticello Nuclear Gener-i j ating Plant -- Testimony by E. C. Glass."

i i I

i

; 9. The regulatory staff has filed testimony under 4

j affidavit conciating of (a) a document, dated March 18, 1970, en-

i titled " Safety Evaluation by the Division of Reactor Licensing,"

l and (b) Supplement No. 1 thereto dated March 30, 1970. The reg-u)atory staff has also submitted to this Board a document en-titled, " Record for Hearing -- Correspondence" and the documents i

referenced therein for the purpose of including in the hearing ,

record the application with its myriad amendments along with all 3

correspondence relating to the application.

l i

,w d

e _

,,,-e. ,- - ,,---, , , , - , - - ,y - , ~ . . - - --

, ,m4 -gr., - ww,,-,,v,wew~ww ww w r~w+w n , - v *-'w -~rw*-vrww-'

r k

, CONTENTS OF APPLICA'. :il AND RECORD OF PROCEEu S

10. Following issuance of the construction permit, the applicant submitted Amendment No, 9 to the application which superseded in their entirety the application for a construction permit and the previous eight amendments. Amendment No. 9 included the applicant's Final Safety Anal'ais Report (FSAR)

I which was thereafter supplemented by Amendments 10 through 25

to the app'lication. The application and the record of the pro-s coeding contain much detailed information about the plant, in-cluding data and informatlon about the site and the basis of its suitability, the design and construction of the plant, quality

! assurance and quality control programs, engireered safeguards, denign features not fully developed and evaluated at the time construction was authorized, proposed technical specifications governing operation of the plant, the applicant's technical and l1 financial qualifications, and the plant's bearing upon the common defense and security. Of particular interest are the following considerations.

l .

Features of the Plant

11. The site of the Monticello Nuclear Generat.ing Plant; Unit 1, consists of 1325 acres located-partially in Sherburne County (on ti.e east bank of the Mississippi River) and partially in Wright County (on the west bank of the River). The plant is

F located in Wright County. The site is about 22 miles southenst 4

i of St.

Cloud (3960 population 33,815) and 30 miles northwest of Minneapolis. The-nearest residence is off-site, approximately l 2750 feet from the plant. The area surrounding the site is l

q primarily agricultural. A low population zone with a radius of l

-}

one mile includes a population of about 25 The minimum ex-The plant design takes clusion zone radius is 1600 feet.

~

into account meteorological,_ hydrological, ground water, and i

soil conditdons, as well as the possibility of credible earth-quakes, wind storms, tornadoes, and floods.1/

12. The applicant initiated in June 1968, an environ-s mental radiation monitoring program to determine and evaluate The i

the effects of the plant's operation on the environment.

i 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 to date have been conducted in coope"ation with the Minnesota Department of Health, and the applicant has taken into account the recommenda-tions of the-Fish and Wildlife Seryice, U. S. Department of the Interior.S! /

i .

4 6/ Applicant's Summary of the Application for the Provisional i

Operating License for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Applicant's Summary), p.3; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.5

-7/ Applicant's Summary, pp.3-6; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.5-9.-

i

$! Applicant's Summary, p.3; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.10.

I I

i _10

• s

13. The nuclear steam supply system (reactor) is a

_ General Electric boiling water reactor which is identical in most design features to Commonwealth Edison Company's Dresden Unit 2, recently licensed by AEC for operation, and is simila:s to otner operating boiling water reactors.E! The reactor is a single-cycle, forced circulation, boiling water reactor pro-

ducing steam for direct use in the steam turbine. The reactor

, 4 will be fueled with slightly enriched uranium dioxide pellets scaled in Zircaloy fuel rods. Reactivity control is provided by movable control rods and variable recirculation flow.10/ -

2 The primary containment system consisting of a steel drywell i I and a steel pressure suppression chamber is designed to accom-modate the pressures and temperatures which would result from,

! or occur subsequent to, a failure equivalent to a double-ended, circumferential rupture of a reactor coolant recirculation system line within the primary containment resulting in the loss of reactor water at the maximum rate. The primary safeguards f

functions of the secondary containment, consisting of the reactor i

building and the standby gas treatment system, are to minimize ground level release of airborne radioactive materials, and to j provide for controlled, filtered, elevated relenae of the renctor

l'ui'. ding a= sphere under post

lated 9:::irr. '*,:2 :: ' . :<: <: <m ,* * - .. .

ditions. The reactor building provides secondary containment 2/ Applicant's Summary, p.7; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.11.

--10/ Applicant's Summary, pp.7-9;- Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.12-14.

A 4

r w - w y y w e

-w w r y

9 i

l during periods when the primary containment system is in service, i and primary containment during periods when the primary contain-11 ment is open.- /

14. In addition to the primary and secondary contain-i 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 j 2 include the emergency core cooling systems,12/ the reactor standby gas treatment system,13! a reactor protection system designed to i

' automatically shut down the reactor when pre-established safety 1

limits are reached,14/ and a standby liquid control system which I

' provides backup reactivity shutdown capability in the unlikely event that shutdown cannot be accomplished by control rods alone.bE j

i 15 At the time the construction permit was issued for the plant a number of design features were identified by the staff and the ACRS as areas requiring further information to be developed and submitted. These areas are covered in the appli-i cant's FSAR and the regulatory staff has concluded that the ap-plicant has submitted all technical information required.15#

bb! Applicant's Summary, pp.9-12; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.22-25 12/ Applicant's_ Summary, pp.12-14; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.25-28 13/ Applicant's Summary, pp.11-12; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.24-25 lb Applicant's Summary, pp.15-16; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.28.

i 1E! Applicant's Summary, p.8; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.13 1! Applicant's Summary, pp.21-22; Staff Safe'ty Evaluation, p.37

(i) 5 Connt.ruction in_Accordance with Applicant's Connt,ruction Permit i

16. The Commission's Division of Compliance has fol-I lowed closely the progress of the construction by means of a scrica of on-site inspections and conferences with the applicant's construction personnel. As a result of these inspections and conferences, the staff has concluded that 4

i A. There is reasonable assurance that Unit 1 will be completed in conformance with Pro-

! visional Construction Permit No. CPPR-31, i the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; and

. t l l B. There is reasonable assurance that Unit 1 will be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel within ninety days from April 28, 1970, the date on which the public hearing in this proceeding is scheduled to begin.11!

l Applicant's Technical Qualifications .

l ,

17 The applicant has gained considerable nuclear e experience in the construction and operation of the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant. The supervisory staff ch'osen to mandge 17/

Supplement No. 1 to Staff; Safety Evaluation, p.19.

l i

g .w

.-+~4 - p- y w w e &- - <Tv=*yy' g-

=

r.

s  !

opera'tions at the Monticello plant is composed of formerly ,

licensed reactor operators at the Pathfinder plant and the qualifications of the key supervisory and professional i personnel meet the " Proposed Standard for_ Selection and Train-i ing of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," Draft No. 9, i i l July 3, 1969, prepared by the American Nuclear Society Standards l Committee.18/-

i l Applicant's Financial Qualifications

18. The applicant estimates an average annual cost of i $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.1A 4

Financial Protection and Indemnity Requirements 19 The applicant has satisfied its present financial i

^

protection requirements under 10 CFR Part 140 of the Commission's l regulations by furnishing to the Commission proof of financial protection in the amount of $1,000,000, as needed for the period

, 1 j fuel is stored unused on the site, in the form of a Nuclear

! Energy Liability Insurance Association policy No. NF-174,_and by

" Applicant's Summary, pp.30-32; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.51-5) 12! Financial Qualifications of'Horthern States Power Company --

Testimony of G. F. Johnson; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.56-57 i

M

't

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

m

. entering into Indemnity Agreement No. B-42 with the Commission applicable to fuel storage. Part 140 also requires that, for 4

1 a limited authorization such as that requested by applicant for i initial fuel loading and low power startup testing at power I

i levels not exceeding five megawatts thermal, applicant must have f

I and maintain financial protection in an amount equal to $4,500,000.

The applicant has obtained letters from the Nuclear Energy Lia-bility Insurance Association and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability

- Underwriters committing to provide an aggregate financial pro-l 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.SS!

t Common Defense and Security

20. The activities to be conducted under the provis-ional operating license will be within the jurisdiction of the l United States, and all of the directort and principal officers of the applicant are United States citizens. The applicant is not owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign cor-E poration or a foreign government. The activities to be conducted do not invrlve any restricted data, but the ap'plicant has agreed

to safe 6uard-any such data which might become involved in ac-

! cordance-with the Commission's regulations. Special nuclear SS/ Financial. Qualifications of Northern States Power Company --

i Testimony of G. F. Johnson; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.56-57 l

i 15- .

-- r -m -. , 9 m- --i-y7--.-w , , . w..-y e ye.w y-

i -- .3

, material for uce as fuel in the proposed facility will be sub-ject to Commis31on regulations and will be obtained from sources of supply available for civilian purposes.21/ -

i e

t

. REVIEW OF APPLICATION

• d BY REGULATORY STAFF AND ACRS i

i 2,1. Since the filing in November 1968, the application consisting of Amendments 9 through 25 has been under constant and thorough review and evaluation by the regulatory staff.

During the evaluation, which was conducted in accordance with current Commission regulatory criteria and policies, the regu-latory staff has held numerous meetings with the applicant to discuss and clarify the information submitted in the amendments.SS The regulatory staff made use of studies by independent experts in its evaluation of such plant safety aspects as air dispersion of gaseous effluents (Air Resources Environmental Laboratory, Environmental Science Services Administration),Sd! site hydrology (Geological Survey, U. S. Department of the I,nterior),2h/ ecolog--

ical effects (Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the t

SS.! Applicant's Summary, p.35; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.56.

I SS! Staff Safety Evaluation, p.2.

i 21/ Staff Safety Evaluation, Appendix B.

--24/ Staff Safety Evaluation, Appendix C.

l i

YW

S .

L

\ T

~

Interior),25/ reactor vessel stress analysis (Teledyne Materials Research),26/ structural design adequacy (Nathan M. Newmark Con-sulting Engineers),S1! and site seismology (U. S. Coast and Geo-1 detic Survey).Sb!

l-

22. The ACRS reviewed the application and, after iden-tifying several items for resolution by the applicant and the staff and making several recommendations, concluded that the plant can be operated at power levels of up to 1670 megawatts thermal without undue risk to the health and safety of the public The items identified by the ACRS have been considered by the regulatory staff in its evaluation of the application, and the applicant has agreed to implement the recommendations of the 2

i ACRS.-9/

23 The results of the regulatory staff's review and i

evaluation of the application are contained ir: the regulatory staff's safety evaluation which has been made available to the public and which has been admitted into evidence in thic proceeding.

e SS! Staff Safety Evaluation, Appendix D.

\. ,

-(. i Staff Safety Evaluation, Apperdix E.

S1 Staff Safety Evaluation, Appendix F.

--28/

Staff Safety Evaluation, p.7 SE Applicant's Summary, pp.23-27; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.54-55 E

4

~ -

4 i .

i

, The regulatory staff concluded in its safoty evaluation that, .

1:

4 with respect-to a provisional operating license authorizing-j- operation at power levels up to 1670 megawatts thermal: LV

.- 1

, a. The-applicant has submitted to the Commission i  !

l , all technical information required by~Provis-i I .

l i

-lonal Construction Permit No. CPPR-31,'the l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act),. ^

}

! .and the rules 1and regulations of the Commission i

i to complete the application for the provisional i

- t operating license; 4

}

b. 'The construction of Unit I has proceeded, and c r there is reasonable assurance that it will be i completed in conformity with Provisional Con-i j , 'struction PermitcNo. CPPR-31,-the application, t

l as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the i t j rules and regulations of the. Commission;-

l .

c. There is reasonable assurance (1)-that'the j activities authorized by the provisional I

] operating' license can be conducted without-endangering-the health'and safety of-the public,

,- 1 ,-

and (ii) that such activities.will be conducted

~

[

i

! in compliance with the rules and regulat' ions.of l -the Commission; 5'

'. . ~

30/

L Staff Larety Evaluation.; pp.60-61.

- u t'

c c_a- _-

~+m g -. y -gA-.. w . - . - ,- - - ~, -, ,m m+4,' y+,, - ,- + , ,, , , , , - , , . . , w. ,-,..,w,, ',. m . w-ie. v> .ln , m w, w, v w

d. The applicant is technically and financially I

qualified to en6 age in the activities authorized by the provisional operating license in accord-

' ance with the rules and regulations of the Com-mission.

4

e. The applicant has furnished to the Commission proof of financial protection in accordance with 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements" of the Commission's regulations; and l

f. The issuance of the provisional operating license under the terms and conditions proposed will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the t

public.

l

+ The regulatory staff also concluded and testified in its Supple-I No. 1 to AEC Regulatory Staff Safety Evaluation that there is I

reasonable assurance that the plant will be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel within 90 days from the date of issuance of the provisional operating license.

(

. %.4 l

4

% 9 l

c .

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND APPLICANT'S POWER REQUIREMENTS

24. The applicant's motion for an interim license

.j authorizing initial fuel loading and low power startup testing i

^

states that the plant will be ready for the beginning of fuel loading into the reactor on or about May 9, 1970. Certain portions of the plant may not be complete by May 9, but their 1

completion is not required for the safe performance of the initial fuel loading and the low power startup program.d1!

Under this schedule for loading and startup, the applicant expects to have 460' megawatts electrical available from the plant during midsummer 1970.

25 The applicant maintains, and the Board agrees, that normal post-hearing procedures, including the filing of proposed findings and conclusions by the parties, the prepar-ation and issuance of an initial decision by the Board, and the minimum period between initial decision and granting of the licenac,3E would mean that the applicant could not expect a license, assuming one is ordered by the Board, sooner than about 50 days following conclusion .of the hearing which is to 31/ Applicant's " Description and Evaluation of Plant Features Which May Not Be Complete During Initial Fuel Loading and 4 Low Power St.artup Testing."

~~32/

I The applicant has moved, pursuant to 10 CFR S 50 57(e) that this Init.ial Decision become effective 10 days after its issuance.

%e t

~20~

i 1

i I I to begin on April 28. The applicant points out that if fuel loading and low power startup testing could not begin until after the conclusion of the hearing and the post-hearing pro-i c?dures, power production at the level required to meet the l,

• public demand for a reliable power supply would not be avail-

! able from the Monticello plant during midsummer 1970.

4

26. The Monticello plant has been constructed in order to provide additional electric generating capability for applicant's interconnected system of high voltage trans-mission lines in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and South Dakota. The need for additional generating capability arises because of the. rapidly increasing public demand for electricity in applicant's system which includes many high volume indus-trial users in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. If power pro-duction from the Monticello plant is not available for summer 1970, the applicant forecasts that the' power deficit facing the applicant and its customers may approximate 10% of the If unusually system's maximum demand during normal weather.

hot weather occurs, the deficit would reach 15%. Power to make up the deficit is not now available for purchase from other systems and the absence of the Monticello plant during the summer j

could therefore result in.a curtailment of service.31!

33/

Applicant's " Requirements for Power Generation from Monticello Nuclear 0,enerating Plant -- Testimony by E. C. Glass."

f o

< l, o ,

. FUEL LOADING AND LOW POWER STARTUP TESTING A

27 The interim authority requested by the applicant 1

i is for initial fuel loading and low power startup testing _only.

~

Both the fuel loading and the iow power startup testing will

! be done in-accordance with detailed written procedures and under 4

i the technical direction of General Electric,'the manufacturer of i

-i' the reactor. g/

1 2 28. _The low power startup testing program is. conducted during and after fuel I ading at atmospheric pressure without the reactor vessel head in place, and at power levels less than five mecawatts thermal. This phase of the startup program in-i j cit ies: control rod drives and control and withdrawal sequence f

(

' tests, initial critical and shutdown margin verifications,:radia-

! tion measurements, source range monitor performance checks, and

$nstallation of neutron sources.1E!

i

29 During initial fuel loading and low power startup

! testing there isuno significant production of gaseous effluent

' and there is very limited generation of liquid waste. -Pending i

j consideration by this Board of the intervenor's contentions, t

! . applicant has committed to withhold such liquid wastes from re-lease to the= environs. Because the fuel to-be loaded is new and l FSAR, Appe.ndix D, $$ 1.2.2 and 5.2.

11l FSAR, Appendix-D, $53 .

i /

I i f '

u and unirradiated, it contains no fissit- products except that insubstantial amount produced during the low power startup tests.

Accordingly, during the initial fuel loading and low power startup testing phase, there is no risk of any incident causing radio-3ogical exposures off-site requiring off-site emergency procedures CONCLUSIONS

} ,

i

,l

' 30. None of the intervenors' concerns relate to the r

,j initial fuel loading and low power startup testing phase for

' which interim authorization is requested by the applicant and none of the issues specified in the notice of hearing, as they pertain only to initial fuel loading and low power startup testing, are matters in controversy. In the Commission's statement of general policy for the conduct of hearings as set forth in I

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 2, the Commission states:

As to matters which are not in controversy, boards are neither required nor expected to

• duplicate the review already performed by the regulatory staff and the AC3S and they are authorized to rely upon the testimony of the

' regulatory staff and the applicant, and the conclusions of.the ACRS, which are not contro-verted by any party. Thus, the board need not I

evaluate those matters which are not in con-10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A $ VI-(d);

troversy, see also $ VI-(b).

1 I 31/ Supra note 31.

l i

3 e

1

y y - - .-.. .u.

'i -

l

31. In view of the foregoing, and taking into consider-ation the public need for an adequate and reliable supply of J

power during the summer of 1970, this Board feels that an order

. 1 of the issuance of an interim provisional operating license

) authorizing initial fuel loading and low power startup testing i'

is within the scope of its directions from the Commission as specified in the notice of hearing. In accordance with the in-tent and spirit of the purposes underlying the holding of public hearings, all parties have been offered every opportunity to npecify their contentions, if they had any, with respect to the initial fuel loading and low power startup testing phase of the Monticello plant operation. None were offered and there is no matter in controversy with respect thereto, 1

32. Accordingly, without prejudice to this Board's consideration at the public hearing of the issues specified by I the Commission in its notice of hearing as they relate to a full power provisional operating license, this Board concludes that, with respect to the issuance of an interim provisional operating license authorizing initial fuel loading and low power startup testing at power levels up to a maximum of five megawatts thermal without the reactor vessel head in place:

l

a. The applicant has submitted to the Commission all technical information required by Pro-visional Construction Permit No. CPPR-31, 1

4 l o e r . ,.

4 4

the Act, and the rules and regulationn of the Commission to complete the application for the interim provisional operating license;

. e i

b. Construction of Unit I has proceeded, and there is reasonable assurance that it will be cenpleted, in conformity with Provisional Con-struction Permit No. CPPR-31, the application, s

as amended, the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission;

c. There is' reasonable assurance (1) that the activities' authorized by the interim provisional i

operating license can be conducted without

' endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted I in compliance with rules and regulations of the

' Commission; i

d. The applicant is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities author-l ized.by the interim provisional operating licenme i

in accordance with the rule:: arn rogolid,1<,rc; '.f the Commission;

c. The applicant has furnished or will timely

_ furnish to the Commission proof of financial k

I

_pq_

a 4e .h - -+e.. 4 .. - .m.as. - -w.-- . - ----.-,-;,

a l , , . (7'p c.,

', protection in accordance with 10 CPR Part 140, I

" Financial Protection Requirements and Indem-nity Agreements", of the Commission's regu-i 1ations;

]

f. There is reasonable assurance that Unit 1 will be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel 1

within 90 days from the date of issuance of the interim provisional operating license; and

g. Issuance of the interim provisional operating licenseunderthetermsandconditiobsproposed

'I will not be inimical to the common defense and 1

s security or to the health and safety of the l

[ public.

l

, ORDER 4

33 Pursuant to the Act and the Commission's Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Regulation issue to Northern i

States Power Company an interim provisional operating license authorizing initial fuel loading of the Monticello Nuclear Gener-ating' Plant, Unit 1, and low power startup testing at power le els up to a maximum of five megawatts thermal and. without the reactor vessel head in place, upon verification by the Commission's Divi-j sion of Compliance that the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, 1

.~. .

I.,;,.

il .

i

. Unit 1, in complete and ready for initial fuel loading but for thone portions of the plant which may not be completed as of May 9, 1970, as discussed in this Initial Decision, Part 1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in accordance with Section 50 57 (e) of the Commission's Regulations, that this Initial Decision, Part I, 1

shall become effective ten days after its issuance subject to (1) the review thereof and further decision by the 'tomic Safety 1

and Licensing Appeal Board, upon exceptions filca any party, i

and (ii) such order as the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board may enter upon such exceptions or upon its own motion i

within forty-five days after the issuance of this Initial Deci-sion, Part I.

ATOM 2 C SAFETY AND LICEMSING BOARD i

i John C. Geyer Eugene Greuling i ,.

Valentine B. Deale, Chairman