ML20127P324

Initial Decision Authorizing Provisional Operating License for Fuel Loading & Low Power start-up Testing.*

ML20127P324
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	08/24/1970
From:	Deale V, Geyer J, Greuling E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUDOCS 9212020189
Download: ML20127P324 (20)

Text

.. -- . - - . . _ - -- __ --. -.

[

fJ&

pon

. UNITid) STATES OF AMI?ltlCA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

Northern States Power Company )

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

Plant, Unit 1) )

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

1. On April 12, 1970 -- five days after the prehearing conference on April 7 and two weeks before the beginning of the initially scheduled hearing on April 28 -- the applicant, Northern States Power Company (NSP), filed a motion requesting the board to authorize an interim pro-visional operating license. The license, sometimes referred to as a !ow power license, was to permit the applicant to undertake initial fuel loading and low power start-up testing at power levels up to a maximum of five megawatts thermal and without the reactor vessel head in place. The proposed low power license was to be subject to the regulatory staff's verification that the Monticello plant was complete and ready I'or low power operation pursuant to the terms of the license.

l k <

9212020189 700g24 DR ADOCK 05000263 l PDR

i -

h 2- y

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

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), a state agency which made a limited appearance, also filed an answer. The regulatory staff's answer offered no objection to the applicant's motion provided that any forthcoming license would be conditioned upon the completion and satis-factory testing of the secondary containment system and the liquid rad-waste system. The applicant's motion had not contemplated the completion and testing of these two systems. The answers of MECCA and MPCA opposed the motion on the basis that the proposed interim provisional license deserves to be subject to the same kind of review and public scrutiny as the full power license, that piecemeal judgments should not be made by the. board without regard to the total operation proposed by.

the applicant, that an untimely granting of the motion to authorize an interim provisional 11 cense wot:1d create undue pressure upon the board in-evaluating the application for a full power license, and that there is no showing of, nor is there in fact, any overriding need for the interim-provisional operating license.

3. In keeping with its notice of April 17 to the parties and MPCA requesting and' inviting answers to the' applicant's motion and scheduling the motion as a preliminary matter at the beginning of the

April 28 hearing, the board afforded the applicant,. the answering parties and MPCA the opportunity to supplement their respective positions .

( 3- f s

g r'egarding the motion. In its oral statement at the hearing on April 28, i

the applicant agreed with the regulatory staff's conclusions calling for the completion of the, secondary containment and radwast,e systems prior , ,,

to fuel loading. The applicant noted_a change in its previously scheduled

~1 -

Y date of May 8 for being ready to begin fuelloading to May 28, and it.

provided updated information as to the items remaining to be finished in the plant construction and the dates of their scheduled completion. In

~

providing this updated information, the applicant distinguished between those items .which were and those which were not, in its ' opinion, necessary for completion prior to fuel loading- The . applicant indicated the propriety of the low power motion in the context of AEC proce' du'res and discounter!

MECCA and MPCA's views to the contrary; it argued the need for prompt

" ~

action from the standpoint of meeting the elebtrical power requirenients of the public; and it stressed the lack of relationship 5>ctween any of the particularized contentions of the intervenors and the requested authoriza-tion for a low power operating licens'e. .

4. On April 28, upon hearing the applicant's supplemental statement pertaining to the remaining work to be done on the plant, the

regulatory staff changed its position on th.e low power motion to one of e . . .

opposition pending a review of the applicant's data submitted that day.

On May 1, the last day of this first series of hearing sessions, the regulatory staff, which had been requested by th'e board to evaluate the l .

d

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

('

4 <

l ,

appilcant's supplemental information, took the position once more that it had no objection to the granting of the low power license motion pro-

• vided that certain unf!nished items were completed prior to fuelloading, e

i The regulatory staff's list of items required to be completed prior to , l 1

l fuelloading was a longer one than the applicant's. The supplemental answers of MECCA and MPCA at the hearing affirmed their previous positions of opposition to the applicant's motion for a low poyver license,

o. The board denied the applicant's motion because of the 1

'inec.nplete statu's of the record. As of May 1, there was no compliance of any sort to the subpoenta issued by the board on April 24 calling for the j production of AEC inspectiv reports. The intervenors' opposition to both l the low power and full power licenses was understandably in an undeveloped state. Under the circumstances, due regard to their rights foreclosed the board from acting affirmatively on the motion, s

6 Following receipt of the regulatory staff's answer of May 8 to the subpoena stating that it expected to be abic to make available to_the parties and the board the subpoenaed inspection reports with certain dele-tions on or before June 2, the board scheduled the resumption of the hear-i ing to begin on June 15. At the second series of hearing sessions, June 15-18, the record, as anticipated, was amplified substantially, Among the addi-4 tions to the record were the AEC inspection reports as made availabic by the regulatory staff, cross examination of the applicant's and regulatory i .

d y g- y- ~ e -g u- pw p --

iy, p ay--.ig ----p 7 - -

f

.s.

4 ,

staff's witnesses on all matters of interest to the intervenors exclusive of subjects arising out of the inspoetion reports, and an ACRS letter recommending a modification to the pressure vessel. Since the earlier hearings, the -)osition of the intervenors for developing their cases had

. greatly advanced and with the maturing of the proceeding, the board, upon the applicant's request, consented to consider a renewal by the applicant of its motion for a low power license.

7. On June 17, the applicant renewed its motion for a low power license, and in support of the motion presented direct testimony of 10 witnesses . The three Icad witnesses provided testimony covering the status of the plant construction as affected by the then current strike of sheet metal workers, the scheduled completion of various construction items within approximately 4 weeks following the strike settlement, an analysis of the postulated worst possible low po'wer accident and resulting off-site dosages, and the need for placing the Monticello plant into service at the earliest p5ssible date. The remaining seven witnesses dealt with ludicated areas of concern to the intervenors in terms of their relevance or lack of relevance to fuel loading and low power start-up testing. These areas principally pertained to emergency planning, liquid and gaseous i

radioactive releases, bypass of the ARS system, scram insertion times, l'

storage handling and leakage of spent fuel, validity of certain assumrtions in the technical specifications, leak detection and loose partis in the primary i coolant system, possible buildup of hydrogen in the containment vessel, and required testing of the primary system as built, i .

l ..

6-

8. Following the applicant's presentation of evidence and argument in support of its renewed motion for a low power license, the 1

~

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

in written form following the hearing. The regulatory staff submitted its answer in pariat the hearing and in part later in written form, including d

q proposed findings and conclusions of law in the form of an initial decision authorizing initial fuelloading and low power start-up testing. The regula- 1 4

tory staff's response indicated concurrence with the applicant's evaluation:

i of remaining work to be done at the Monticello plant prior to initial fuel

. I loading and with-the validity of the applicant's postulated control rod drop ,

' accident and its calculation of off-site doses resulting from such an i

> accident. The regulatory staff also explained its vf w that the record is 4

sufficient to support the findings necessary to authorize low power i

i operation. '

a 9 MECCA'strosponse to the motion, made orally at the hearing, i

l centered on the contention that the board should refuse to take any action I

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

. i l'

Messrs. Dzugan, Pepin and Burnett's response to the motion in writing 4

a -

g I

i i

( (-

,- 8-hearing on August 5 and included on the agenda of the hearing the subject l

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

' motion, the board requested updated testimony from the applicant and regulatory staff and provided the opportunity for direct testimony by the intervenors. The board also provided for the completion of the inter-venors' cross-examination relating to the inspection reports as made available to the parties.

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

ing to this testimony, the sheet metal workers had returned to work on July 9 and the plant was to be ready for fuelloading and start-up testing I

l on August 24. The applicant and the regulatory staff were in agreement .

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

and Messrs. Dzugan, Pepin and Burnett offered no direct testimony on the low power motion and their cross-examination of the updated testimony on the low power motion related to ascertaining who verified the calibra-tion of the feedwater icvel instrumentation systems. Arguments by each I

i of the parties were essentially restatements'of previous positions.

i

i l .

\

i i

t

- 9- ,

i  !

e

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

license, the board has addressed itself to the issues set out in the notice of hearing with the qualification that it has viewed the issues in terms of .

d their application to authorization of a low power license rather than a full power license.

4 h I.1ECCA and Messrs. Dzug'an, Pepin and Burnett have had 4 13.

i abundant opportunity to develop their respective cases against the applicant's 5

motion for a low power license. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, j

i though not a party to the proceeding, has had the same opportunity to j

develop its opposition to the motion. Whereas In the early stages of the 1

i proceeding the b'oard was constrained to deny the motion out of regard to J

the lack of opportunity for the opponents of the motion to develop their i

cases, there is no longer any such impediment forest 3111ng the board from going forward and dealing with the motion on its merits. p t

s 1

i j i

, . . . . ._ _ _ . . _ _ . , _ _ _ , . . ~ . _ . , .,m, m.y. . _ ..,,.,__,,,,m-., _ _. , , ,,,,,,.,. ., , _ m_. , .

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

r <

i i

i ,

j .

3 I 14. The board regards it as fitting and proper, and indeed i a matter of ordinary prudence, under existing licensing procedures, for i

the applicant to file a motion for a low power license when its application j ,

! for a full power license is pending before the board in a contested proceeding i

and when its plant, constructed pursuant to an AEC Construction Permit, is approaching completion and is nearly ready for initial fuel loading and

- start-up testing. So far as this board is concerned, the applicant has no i

burden to prove considerations extraneous to the noticed issues - such as e

j urgent need for powers, heavy economic loss or detrimental impact upon the environment -- as necessary antecedents to the board addressing j

! Itself to the merits of the motion.

i

! 15. The evidentiary record in this proceeding may or may not be expanded when the controversy over the inspection reports is t

! settled. Otherwise, the evidentiary record is closed, in this board's .

Judgment, the controversy over the inspection reports affords no basis for the board now to hold up its consideration of the motion for a low power license. The opponents of the mntion were given ample opportunity to

! develop their cases with rapect to such motion. Further, the board has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the opponents which was i

not formally associated with the motion for a low power license but which had a bearing on low power operations. Upon examination of the entire public record as well as the portions of the inspection reports withheld from ~

the parties, the board cannot find' justification to defer passing judgment L

( .

l 3

i

. 11 l

i I ^

on the merits of the applicant's motion for a low power license. In i

reaching this conclusion, the Soard has been persuaded by the compre-i hensiveness and quality of evidence in the record supporting the motion l

as contrasted to the evidence and arguments opposing the motion.

s -

i i

i FINDilNGS OF FACT p .

j 16. The Northern States' Power Company flied its application dated August 1,' 1960, for all necessary AEC licenses to coristruct and i

} operate a nuc1 car power facility at its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

located in Wright County, about three miles northwest of Monticello,

)

i Minnesota. Following issuance of the construction li ermit, the applicant i

! submitted Amendment No. 9 to the application which superseded in its i

entirety the application fo'r a construction permit and the p'revious eight

(

f amendments. Amendment No. 9 included ~the applicant's Final Safdty Analysis Report, required under $50.34(b) of the Commission's Regulations, which was thereafter supplemented by Amendments 10 through 28 to the-l .i application. The application and the record of the proceeding cantain extensive information about the plant, including data and infori$ation about 4

4 j the site and the basis of its suitability, the design and construction of the plant, quality assurance rnd quality control programs, engineered safe-

. ].

[ guards,. design features not ailly developed and evaluated at the time i

4 v.,.n- - - . . - , . - ~ . . , , . . .

- ~ 4 - - ~.7%-+ ,..---e.- ..:--- .-ce ~w.-- - , - ~.mu ,vi -y.--

(-

construction was authorized, proposed technical specifications pursuant to $50.36 of the Commission's Regulations, emergency plans, the applicant's 1

technical and financial qualifications, and the plant's bear %g upon the common defense and security and the health and safety of the public. The AEC's regulatory staff's testimony at the hearing, including its own safety ,

evaluation, confirmed the sufficiency of the applicant's data in terms of

\ Commission requirements.

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

. evidentiary record. The staff witnesses confirmed the testimony of the applicant's witnesses that the construction of the Monticello plant has gonc j forward and will be completed in accordance with AEC requirements. In i

this regard, the regulatory staff's witnesses noted the overa11' cooperation

, of the applicant and its team during the construction period.

6 s 4

l

._[____________._ __ ._ _ ]

i

! i

18. A control rod drop accident is regarded as the worst i conceivable accident tht could occur during the fuelloading and low

+ power start-up testing program. The applicant calculated that under this i

accident condition the resultant radiological exposures at the closest ,

site boundary would be well v/lthhi the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines. The regulatory staff agreed with the applicant's conclusion and the fact that the applicant's calculations were based on conservative assumptions relative i

to fission product release, transport, and behavior within the facility and to the environs by way of the standby gas treatment system filterc and off-gas

' stack.

19. The record shows that-during fuelloading no fission or activation pr oduct formation occurs and that during low powcr start-up testing up to five megawatts thermal (less than one percent of full power),

l small quantities of fission products and activation products may be formed at a rate of less than one microcurie per second in the primary coolant.

The small quantities which may be released as gases are of insignificant

. consequence. Similarly, during fue! loading and low power start-up testing, the amount of liquid radioactive waste discharge is likewise calculated as

h. consequential, ,

i l l 20. The experience of the regulatory staff with the appilcant's-i compliance with AEC requirements: has.beenpositive. Applicant's-i

,ww -

e d

1 4

. testimony, corroborated by the regulatory staff's, indicates a determina-tion to meet the Commission's requirements. There is no evidence in the .

record to suggest the contrary. The regulatory staff's testimony to the effect that the applicant has a good record for keeping its commitments is in point.

21 The - pplicant 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 9

is composed of formerly licensed reactor operators at the Pathfinder Plant and the qual'ifications of the key supervisory and professional per-sonnel meet the " Proposed Standard for Selection and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," Draft No. 9, July 3,1969, prepared by the Americ'an Nuclear Society Standards Committee, Both the initial fuel loading and low power start-up testing will be conducted under the technical direction of General Electric, the manufacturer of the reactor, which has extensive experience and know-how in the nuclear power field, i

i e f

i

( e 4

1 J

22 The applicant estimates an average annual cost of $8.8 million for each of the first five years of operation. The record indicates that 4

the applicant's operating revenues will be ample to cover these costs.

The regulatory staff concurs in this conclusion.

23 The applicant has furnished to the Commission proof of financial protection in the amount of $1 million as needed for the period fuel is stored unused on the site, in the form of a Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association Policy No NF-174, and has entered into an indemnity agreement No. B-42 with the Commission applicable to fuel storage. The applicant has obtained letters from the Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters committing to provide an aggregate financial protection of up to $82 million, the maximum amount required by the Commission's regulations for a full power license for a facility of this size. For pur-

. poses of a limited authorization covering initial fuel loading and low power start-up testing at power levels hot exceeding 5 megawatts thermal,

{ the applicant is only required to have and maintain financial protection I in an amount equal to $4. 5 million.

.} -

y .

l l

l l

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

j- '

b.. e .

p .

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

I .

d :the course of the three series of hearings; described the status of the-T Monticello plant's construction in considerable detail,- including delays in con-4 j- ] struction caused by various labor problems. Members of the board and i

. representatives of the parties viewed in person the progress of construc-1 i

' I tion with an on-site tour of the facility. The most recent testimony.of the-t applicant and the regulatory staff on August 7 indicated that the facility.

i would be ready for fuel loading and low power start-up testing by i ,

L August 24. At the time of the most recent hearing, items not yet completed and needing completion prior to fuel loading and low power e

I start-up testing were identified by concurring testimony of the applicant

and the regulatory staff. ,The' regulatory staff also_ testified that additional t- ,

i open items relevant to fuel loading and low power start-up testing .

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

25..- The activities to be. conducted under the provisional operating--

license.will be within the jurisdiction of the United States, and all of the directors and principal officers of the applicant are United States citizens.

p iThe' applicant is not owned,. controlled,' or-dominated by an alien, a foreign y

l l corporation,1 or a foreign government. The activities to be co'nducted do - '

- 3 L

i L: '

I

.-.._...-.,..........--,._.,4,o--. ,--,.L,,..,-..,..., __ . , - . - - - - . ,....;,.

l (  !;zh i.

not involve any restricted data, but the applicant has agreed to safeguard any such data which might become involved in accordance with the Commission's regulations. Special nuclear material for use as fuel in .

• a

! the facility will be subject to Commission regulations and will be obtained l

from sources of supply available for civilian purposes.

1

.,~

, 26 Since the filing in November of 1968, the application for a 4

• i full power operating license has been under a continuing review and l- evaluation by the regulatory staff. The regulatory staff's conclusions,

}

set out in its Safety Evaluation and in its testimony during the hearing, ,

4 have been entirely supportive of the application. The regulatory staff's 4

I own judgments have taken into account two reports of the Advisory e

Committee on Reactor Safeguards on the proposed operation of the i

Monticello plant. These reports, dated January 10 and June 16, 1970, l

both concluded that the plant could be operated at power levels of up to i

1670 megawatts thermal without undue risk to the health and safety of s

the public. The reports included several recommendations which the :

1 applicant agreed to implement. '

27. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,- the regulatory staff introduced as Staff Exhibit No. 2, a docu-g -

ment entitled " Statement on Environmental Considerations Relating to i ,

- Proposed Operation by Northern States Power bompany of the Monticello i Nuc'l ear Generatinig Plant, Unit 1. " .

1-.

.. . -, , , , , , , , - ~, . .~ - n ... .,,,-~,i,.. . . . , . . - - ~ , - , - - , - . . . . . . . . - - .

r

(

4 CONCLUSIONS

28. Without prejudice to its later consideration of the issues i

specified by the Commission in the notice of hearing as they relate to a full power provisional operating license, this board concludes that, with

. respect to the issuance of a provisional operating license authorizing fuel loading and low power startup testing at power levels up to a maximum of five megawatts thermal without the reactor vessel head in place:

! a. NSP has submitted to the Commission all tech-nical information required by Provisional Con-struction Permit No. CPPR-31, the Act, and the rules and regulations of the CommT.ssion to complete the application for the provisional i

operating license;

b. Construction of Unit 1 has proceeded, and there is reasonable assurance that it will be completed, in conformity with Provisional Construction s ,

Permit No CPPR-31, the application, as 1

amended, the provisions of the Act, and the f rules and regulations of the Commission; l

l i

i 4

+e +v my s er

(

l d

) c. There is-reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by the provisional operating

'f: license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with

.! rules and regulations of the Commission;

d. NSP is technically and financially qualified to

, engage in the activities authorized by the provisional operating license in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commission;

e. NSP has furnished or will timely furnish 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;

'f . There is reasonable assurance that Unit 1 will ,

be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel l .

~

i

(~.

-.f5 j- ,

t .

m 1 1

W -

j. ' .

within 90' days from the date of issuance of i:

l .

3 the provisional operating license; and t .

1 I 4 g. Issuance of the provisional-operating license s

, under the terms and conditions proposed will l not be inimical to the common defense and- -

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

i j~

- ORDER e i

i .i

29. Pursuant to the Act and the Commission's' regulations, IT IS.

I ORDERED that the Director of Regulation is authorized to issue to i

Northern States Power Company a provisional operating license autho- .

I rizing fuel loading of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit.1,.

l , -

~

and low power start-up testing at power levels up to a maximum of five-l- megawatts thermal and without the reactor vessel head in place (such l- 1 -

l -license to be in keeping with the forrn of proposed license transmitted to the

4, board and-the parties by the regulatory staff on August 21, = 1970) upon .verifica' 1  ;

I

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

2-

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

, )

l .

.sary thereto as identified in the testimony of Adgust 7,1970. IT IS FURTHEliS t-ORDERED,2 in accordance with 5 50. 57(e) 'of the. Commission's . Regulations, .

~

~

L that this Initial Decision shall tiecome effective', ten (10)~ days after its 4-

'. . . _ - . ~ . L, , + , , ,- - ~ ~ , . . - , , ..-..,,t.,,,, * . . . . - . , - . . . . . . . - . . - , . . . . - . .. ., ----- --...- .

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

< i l , ,. . , . . .-

(_ .

( . . . 1 l -

+

issuance subject to'(i) the review thereof 'and further decision by the 3 '

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, tipon exceptions filed by any ;

l party, and (ii) such order as' the Atomic' Safety and Licensing Appeal ~

Board may enter upon such exceptions ~ or_ upon its own motion within. ,

l- forty-five (45) days after the issuance of this Initial Decision. -

I 1 ATOMIC SAFETY AND: LICENSING-BOARD I _ A&E ) .

n C. -Geycr _ -g- ~

ig

' Eug6ne Creup g/

i-  ; .

. A

\ alentine B. Deale, Chairrrian%

Washington, D. C.

August 24, 1970- ,

l-I

.l --

c i j-i,

, t L- ~ ~

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