ML20127M878

Informs That General Counsel Advised That Provisions of 10CFR50.10(b) Do Not Proscribe Performance of Listed Work Prior to Issuance of CP Re Util Request for Exemption

ML20127M878
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	02/28/1967
From:	Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Ramey, Seaborg, Tape US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9211300498
Download: ML20127M878 (8)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - -

1

. 4,'

~.

.c s

(

{-

f.' pg%

. h) W I*

uMTc sw s r

.-.:. k $

/

ATOMIC ENERGY OOMMISSION k t r

WAMNGToN, D.C. 205a FEB 2 8 1l167 l

fd-jl 43 MENDRANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN SEABORG 4

-t

/$

COMMISSIONER RAMEY

/

/

COMMISSIONER TAPE 4

COMPSSIONER NABRIT COMeuSSIONER JOHNSON

SUBJECT:

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY - REQUEST FOR EXEPEIION

~t Northern States Power Company filed an application, dated August 1,1966, for a construction permit for a boiling water nuclear p6 er plant at a site near Monticello, Minnesota. The hearing on the application will probably be held in April or q%

May of this year. On January 27, 1967, the Company requestcd a General Counsel's opinion as to whether certain work could be performed at the site prior to the issuance of a constructicn o

permit. On February 23, 1967, the Company requested an exemption U h h}

from the provisions of Section 50.10(b) of the Consnission's regulations, to the extent that such an exemption is required, to permit the conduct of the work described in the previous letter prior to the issuance of a construction permit.

In the attached memorandum, the General Counsel has advised that the provisions of 10 CFR $ 50.10(b)* do not proscribe.he performance of the following work prior to the issuance of a Section 50.10(b) provides in pertinent part:

No person shall begin the ccustruction of a production or utilization facility on a site on which the facility is to be operated until a construction permit has been issued. 'As used in this paragraph, the term "construc-tion" shall be deemed to include ocuring the founda t ion o f, or the installation o f, any nortion of the eer-menent facility on the-site; but does not include:

(1) Site exploration, site excavation, preoaration of the site for construction of the facilitv anc con-struction of roadways, railroad spurs and transm13sion lines;...

(Emphasis supplied )

9211300498 670228 PDR -ADOCK 05000263 A

PDR

_ _ _ _____ _ _-______ ___ _____ __a

I

(_.

2-construction permit:

the excavations for the reactor and tur-bine buildings; the construction of the turbine building; the installation of a concrete mud slab; the erection of wooden forms; and the placement of reinforcing steel in the reactc,r building excavation. With respect to two alternatives proposed by the Company for the installation of a segment of concrete under the turbine building to give support to the earth underlying the floor of the turbine building, the General Counsel has advised that the alternative which involves the eventual incorporation of this segment in the wall and floor of the reactor buildin's is proscribed by Section 50.10(b).

The Company, in support of its request for an exemption, states that the coumencement of tne work on or about March 1,1967,

~~

is necessary in order to assure the availability of the Monticello plant for c.ounercial production of electrical energy on schedule, and is, therefore, in the public interest.

I propose in this case to grant the exemption requested by the Company for installa tion of the segment of concrete under the turbine building which would eventually be incorporated in the wall and floor of the reactor building.

(See attached lette:.)

I would like to discuss this matter with you at an early Informa-tion Meeting.

Harold L. Price Director of Regulaton M

l N

/

~ ~~

Attachments:

f s~g As stated 7

f i

cc: General Counsel (2) j [ 6 ')

General Manager (2)

Secretariat (2) 7

>W7 V

e t

kN Ynmm u p-c 7 n xus7 Su

.2 - A7-47

3

(-

Earold L. Price In :enjunction with the previously described work, NSP proposes to perform four it fum of additional work. NSF states that the tur:ine and reactor buildings will be located adjacent to each oth:r, with the wall of one separated from the wall of the other by s few inches; and that the turbine building wall will be in-ade -uctely supported unless special measures are taken to hold the earth under the turbine building in place during construc-tion. NSP proposes to resolve this problem by installing, prior to 3ouring the concrete for the turbine building floor, a segment of :encrete to give support to the earth underlying the turbine building floor. NSP states that this segment would ultimately be incorporated into one wall and the floor o f the reacter build-ing and as such would become a permanent part of the reactor building. As an alternative to this approach, NSP states that a ser:ent of concrete independent of the reactor building could be inr:alled under the turbine building floor to provide the neces-sar-support. NSP points out, hewever, that such a segment wov '.d serve no useful purpose following the erection of the roccter butiding since the reactor building wall would provide all necessary support for the turbine building. NSP estimates th t the cost of either alternative would be $30,000.

Section 50.10(b) provides that no person may pour the foundation for, or install, any portion of the permanent facility on the sit : without a construction permit. The installation of a seg-met t of concrete under the turbine building floor, as proposed (Fc otnote

• continued)

(1)- Site exploration, site excavation, preparation of the site for construction of = the facility and construction of roadways, railroad spurs and trans-mission lines; (2) Procurement or manufacture of components of the facility; (3) Construction of non-nucicar facilities (such as turbo-generators and turbine buildings) and temporary buildings (cuch as censtruction equipment storage sheds) for uso in connection with the construction e f the faci _it -

_ = = _s f.

l r.

I i

Haro',d L. Price 4 by N;?, which~ will be incorporated as part of _ the reactor build-ing call and floor, appears to be proscribed by $ 50.10(b) since such work involves pourin3 the foundation for a portion of the perennent facility and will be relied upon to function structurally as an integral part of the reactor building foundation. The alternate approach described by NSP would not be proscribed by

$ 50.10(b) since it does not involve aa nstruction of any portion of t e permanent nucicar facility, i

The :emaining three items of work which NSP proposes to perform prior to the issuance of a construction permit are:

(1) the installation of a thin (4"-6") concrete mud slab across the reae:cr building excavation to provide a level, mud-free surface i

on s tich workmen may work; (2) the erection of wooden forms for the cacter building floor and walls; and (3) the placement in the excrvction of reinforcing steel for the floor of the reactor 4

bui?iing.

I In ry opinion the installation of the concrete mud slab does not cont titute " construction" as that term is used in $ 50.10(b).

Suci work may be properly characterized as " preparation of the site for the construction o f the facility" since the mud. slab l

wil: not be relied upon to function structurally as an integral par + of the reactor foundation, yor the same reasons, I am of the i

opinion that the erection of wooden forms for the reactor build-ing floor and walls does not constitute " construction" and is morn properly identified as " site preparation". Such forms are not required to carry operating loads and are either removed aftnr the floor or wall is poured and set or are left in place sol ty for economic reasons. If left in place after construc-tio,, they serve no necessary or useful purpose.

A mire difficult question is raised by the placement in the exc :vation of reinforcing steel for the floor of the reactor bui. ding. NSP states that it does not intend "to install the steel in a pe$nanent way but only to bend it as necessary and place it in its proper position in the excavation, securing it only by tying it to other pieces of reinforcing secol and. not attachin: it te the walls or floor of the excavation in any var.'

4

^

-k

_w

_y

_e

I

~

(-

L..

1 4

Harold 1. - Price 4 Althou;h the steel will become a part of the permanent facility 1

when c 'ncrete is poured over it, NSP states that it will not be pertan'ntly installed prior to the issuance of a construction permit nr.d would be readily removable.

l While :he reinforcing steel will become an integral part of the reacto r foundation, it is difficult to sustain an argument that the me re placement of steel in the excavation without attaching it or aff'.xing it in any permanent way-is " installation of any portion of the permanent facility". While admittedly a close question, I have concluded that the placement of the reinforcing steel in the re10 tor excavation as proposed by NSP may be considered "prepa -ation of the site for construction of the facility" and does na: constitute " construction" as that term is used in sectio 30.10(b) of the Commission's regulations.

1

?

e eem_-A 1

a

]

1 0

-~

~_

(

(

,,., =~> 7 +

j r,.a c.c...u m v j

UNITED s 'ATES GOVERNMENT Mernorandum To Harold 7. Price DATE:

FEB 2 81967 Direc tm o f Regulatien mm Joseph r. 'lennessey 7enerel Oeunsel m; p c--

NORT 2R' S'"A2S POWER CO'OA"Y - REQUEST FOR AN OPINION OF ""RE OE' TRAL OC"FSEL The Ner hern States Power Company (NSP) filed an application, dated y

August 1966, for a construction permit to build a boiling water nuclear power plant at a site near Monticello, Minnesota. The hear-ing on he application has not yet been scheduled.

By letter dated January 27, 1967, NSP requested an opinion of the General Counsel, pursuant to 10 CFR SS 50.3 and 50.4, as to whether certain work at the sit" which NSP proposes to undertake in advance of the issuance of a co-struction permit is permissible under existing Commission regulat ans.

The priminal items of work which NSP proposen to undertake are the excavat m for the reactor and turbine buildings and the commence-ment of :he construction of the turbine building. This may be per-formed 'rior to the issuance of a construction permit since it in-volves site excavation" and the " construction o f non-nuclear facilit es'* as those terms a::e used in 10 CFR S 50.10.

• Secti<n 30.10 provides in pertinent part:

(a)

".xcept as provided in 5 50.11, no perron within the Unite : States shall transfer or receive in interstate cocnerce, manuf cture, produce, trans fer, acquire, pos sess, use, import, or ex' ort any production or utilization facility except as au-thori ed by a license issued by the Commission.

(b)

To person shall begin the construction of a producticn or utili ation facility on a site on which the facility is to be i

opera :ed until a construction permit has been issued. As used in th.2, pcragraph, the term " construction" shall be deemed to inclu te pouring the foundation for, or the installation of, any porti m of the permanent facility on the site; but does not inclu:2:

(continued) 1

' f.

T g

-=

+

s i

ma s n '

j ik 5 f

,{

+ - - +

m

n---

'o

- r-g k.

\\.

y g

-L.-

N s

/

(()O k

't UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

,[

~ -~~

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

%m e [

l 1

Donald E. Nelson, Esq.

Vice President and General Counsel i

Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Avenue l

^

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 1

Dear Mr. Nelson:

This is in reply to the letters of Northes states Power Company, dated January 27 and February 23, 1967, ret tding certain work proposed to be performed at the site of the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant prior to the issuance of a construction permit by the Commission.

You state that prior to the issuance of the construction permit you propose to 1) undertake the excavation for the reactor build-l ing and the turbine building; 2) begin construction of the tur-bino building; 3) install a segment of concrets under the tur-bine building to give support to the'~carth underlying the floor of that building which would eventually be either incorporated as a permanent part of one wall and a part of the floor of the reactor building, or would be independent of the reactor build-I ing, depending on which alternative is selected; 4) install a thin concrete mud slab across the reactor building excavation;

5) erect wooden forms for the reactor building floor and walls; and 6) place but not attach reinforcing steel for the floor of the reactor building in the excavation for that building.

In the attached memorandum, the Commission's General Counsel has advised that the provisions of 10 CFR $ 50.10(b) do not proscribe the performance of the following work, as described in your letter of January 27, prior to the issuance of a con-struction permit: the excavations for the reactor and turbine buildings; the construction of the turbine building; the in-sta11ation of the concrete mud slab; the erection of the wooden forma; and the placement of the reinforcing steel in the reactor building excavation.

i t

- - - ~ -

-, - +,,_,. -. - -

- _.. ~.

f

,e j..,

6 4

i k

Donald E. Nelson, Esq.

- 2:-

With respect eo the two alternatives you propose for the installation of a segment of concrete under the turbine

~

building to give support to the earth underlying the floor of the turbine building, the General Counsel has advised that the alternative which invo'ves the eventual incorporation of this segment in the waii and floor of the reactor building is proscribed by 10 CFR $ 50.10(b).

The other alternative is not so proscribed and may be followed prior to the issuance of a construction permit.

In your letter of February 23, 1967, you requested, pur-suant to 10 CFR $ 50.12, an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR $ 50.10(b), to the extent that such an exemption is required, to permit the conduct of the work described in your letter of January 27, 1967, prior to th'e issuance of a construction permit. You state that the commencement o f the work on or about March 1,1967, is necessary in order to assure the availability of the Monticello plant for com-cercial production of electric energy on schedule, and is, therefore, in the public interest.

j We have carefully reviewed your request for an exemption j

cnd the reasons set forth in support thereof, and have l

concluded that the granting of the proposed exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or i

the common defense and security and is otherwise in the pub-lic interest. Accoroingly, the Commission hereby authorizes j

you to install, prior to the issuance of a construction permit, a segment of concrete under the turbine building floor of the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, as proposed in your letter of January 27, 1967, which will be in-

- ~

corporated as part of the reactor building wall and floor.

I wish to emphasize that the granting of this exemption shall have no effect upon the subsequent granting or denial of a construction permit for the proposed Monticello 4.-,-.o-%

4 F

r Y Y g

__. ~.. -... - ~ _. _. _. =. _ _ _

1 f

' ;T"f f4i7h 7 T-M

~M

' ~ "

j '...,

y

,o

}

'}lUq, ',,.

)*

.c a

,y t

e, 1

d -

f-

.g w v

. g- -

p 4

Donald E.. Nelson, Esq.

.~ 4 1

I Nuclear Power Plant, and any work performed pursuant to j

this exemption shall be performed entirely at.the risk of Nerthern States Power Company. Furthermore, the granting j

of this exemption does.not constitute an approval of the i

type or adequacy of the segment or of the method of its installation.

a 4

Sincerely yours, i

i

' Harold L. Prics i

Director of Regulation

Enclosures:

j j-As stated i

cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge &

Madden i

Batr Building 910 -.17th Street, N.W.

a Washington,'D. C.

i-

!-r i

1

. Ae" i

3 t

i t

I.

.,1._.-.

n_

n,u,n__

1. .w

..t c..

.m.._...,c.

,