ML20127H169

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by AEC Regulatory Staff (in Form of Proposed Intermediate Initial Decision Authorizing Initial Fuel Loading & Low Power Startup Testing).*

ML20127H169
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	06/24/1970
From:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 9211180419
Download: ML20127H169 (20)

Text

_

- -- -~

o' '

( i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , , _ ?2 d ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION in the Matter of )

/L

)

NORDIERN STATES POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-263

)

(Monticello Nuclear Generating )

Plan t , Unit 1) )

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF T!.CT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY DIE AEC REGULATORY STAFF (IN BfE FORM OF A PROPOSED lhTEPMEDIATE INITIAL DECISION AUDIORIZING INITIM. FUEL LOADING AND LOW POWER STARTUP TESTING)

Preliminary Statement

1. Dtis proceeding involves the application of the Northern States Power Company (NSP) for a provisional operating license for Unit 1 of its Monticello Nucicar Generating Plant.1/ Unit 1 (hereinaf ter referred to as Unit 1 or the facility), which will utilize a single-cycle, forced circulation boiling water reactor 1/ The initial application for all necessary licenses to con-struct and operate the facility, dated August 1,1966, was properly filed with the Commission under section 104 b, of the Atomi; Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The application, as amended by amendments 1 through 8, constiented the appli-cation for a provisional construction permit. After the application was reviewed by the AEC regulatory staff, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and af ter appro- ,

priate public proceedings conducted by an atomic safety and 7 licensing board, a provisional construction permit for Unit 1 was authorized. Provisional Construction Permit CPPR-31 '

[

was issued on June 19, 1967. Subsequently, amend:nent 9 to the application dated November 7,1968, was filed with the  !

Com:r.ission in connection with the NSP application for a pro-visional operating license. This was supplemented by amend-ments 10-27 to the application. Amendments 9-27 constitute the application for consideration in this proceeding.

9211180419 700624 PDR ADOCK 05000263 0 PDR ,

Y 4

4 on their ova behalf or on behalf of organizations which they represented. The City of St. Paul also made such a linited appearan ce . A limited appearance pursuant to 10 CFR 52.715(c) i was made by the State of tunnesota Pollution Control Agency.

3

4. The parties to this proceeding were (1) NSP, (2) the AEC regulatory staf f,- and (3) intervenors (a) Minnesota Environ-mental Control Citizens Association (MECCA), (b) liichael Donchue ,

and (c) Messrs. Kenneth Dzugan, lhcodore'Pepin, andf Ceorge B.

l Burnett III.

5. On April 12, 1970, NSP filed with this board a motion for an interim provisional operating license autiiorizing initial fuel loading and low power startup testing of Unit 1 at power levelu of 5 megawatts thernal and without the reactor vessel head in place.

i

! On ,.p ril . 2 3, 19 70, the AEC regulatory staff filed an annver to this j motion in which it stated that it had no objections to the. granting-cf the motion provided the construction cnd testing of certain por-l L

sions of the facility were co=pleted. In- a response dated April 18, 1970, intervenor MECCA opposed the motion on various grounds. .Ihe L . . .

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency also opposed the motion in a-l response received on April' 21, 1970. ,

i

6. At the coe=encement of the public hearing on April 28, 1970, NSP modified its motion with respect to the identification 5

. . _ . . .. _, _ .. _ _ _._ ____.m. . _ _ . _

(

4_

of those systens which would be completed before initial fuel loading. 4/ This modified motion was opposed by intervenor MECCA and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 5/ The AEC regulatory staf f opposed the motion pending further study of the modified motion. 6/ Subsequently, on May 1,1970, the AEC regulatory staff stated that it had no objections to the granting of the modified motion provided the construction of specified systees and components was completed and certain testing completed. 7/

At the conclusion of all argu=ents , this board denied the motion solely on the basis 'of the incomplete status of the hearing record as of May 1, 1970. 8/ _

7. On June 17, 1970, following the introduction by all parties of their respective direct evidence on all the issues for

consideration in this proceeding and following cross-examination on all matters with the exception of the AEC regulatory staff 4/ Tr. pp. 215-229.

_5/ Tr. pp. 233 and 236.

6/ Tr. p. 232.

7/ Tr. pp.- 852-856.

8/ Tr. p. 859.

f

l

. \

I l

)

1 l

inspection reports, which will be further discussed in the body of this Internediate Initial Decision, NSP again moved for s l

provisional operating license authorizing fuel loading and low power startup testing on the grounds that such a license was required by NSP to avoid a costly delay in initiating fuel load-  ;

ing and low power startup testing pending the completion of this proceeding, which the board had announced would be again adjourned l pending resolution of the subpoena matter. 9/ Intervenor MECCA  ;

opposed the motion on the grounds that the record of the hearing was not complete.10/ Intervenors Messrs. Dzugan, et al. , stated that they would provide the board with a wri_tten answer to the motion. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency submitted a letter to the board opposing the cotion. 1)) The AEC regulatory staf f stated that it had no objections to the granting of the motion 1

subject to certain conditions reinting to the completeness of construction of the f acility.12/

8. This Intermediate Initial Decision is concerned solely with the NSP request for a provisional operating license author-izing fuel loading and low power startup testing at a power level l l

4 9/ Tr. p. 1331.

1 10/ Tr. pp. 1451-1452. l lif Tr. pp. 1452-1455.

1 12/ Tr. pp. 1445-1448 and Answer of the AEC Regulatory Staf f dated June 24, 1970. , j i

j

J not to exceed five cegawatts thermal and without the reactor vessel head in place. For the purposes of this Intermediate

- Initial Decision, the findings of fact may be based on evidence which is applicable to operation of Unit 1 at power levels up to 1670 megawatts thermal, which necessaril;' includes 1;.itial fuel loading and operation up to five megawatts thermal vititout ,

the reactor vessel head in place. An Initial Decision regarding the NSP application for a provisional operating license author-Azing operation of Unit 3 at 1670 megawatts thermal will not be

- issued until the cone)usion .;f this proceeding.

> . Findings of Fact

9. The purposes of this proceeding are adequately served by omitting f rom this Intermediate Initial Decision a great amount of descriptive information regarding Unit 1 and NSP which would be repetitious of such information contained in the application, the AEC regulatory staff's Safety Evaluation, and NSP's summary of the application, all of which are a part of the record in this proceeding.

10. The application and the record of the proceeding contain much detailed information regarding the facility, including infor-mation about the site and the basis of its suitsbili'ty, the design and construction of the plant, quality cssurcnce and quality control

programs , enginee red safeguards , design features not fully devel-oped and evaluated at the time construction uns authorized, proposed technical . specifications governing operation of the plant, ecergency plans and such other technical information as is required to be provided by Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-31, the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission to complete the application for a provisional operating license. The AEC regulatory staff has affitned that sudh information has been submitted.13/

11. The AEC regulatory staf f '..as offered testicony which indicates that it has followed closely the progress of construction of this facility by on-site inspections, conferences with NSP per- .

sonnel and those of its contractors. The AEC regulatory staff has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that Unit I will be completed in conformance with the provisional construction permit, the application, the provisions of the Act and the Co= mission's regulations,14/ although at this time certain specified problems require resolution.15/

12. The AEC regulatory staff has testified as to its evalua-tion regarding the activitice which would be authorized under pro-visional operating licenses for operation of Unit 1 at 1670 megawatts 13/ Staff Safety Evaluation p. 60.

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

J5/ Staff Exhibit 5.

t

-S-thermal and for fuel loading and low power startup testing at a power level not to exceed five cegawatts thermal without the reactor vessel head in place. It determined that such activities can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the

. public and in cocpliance with the rules and regulations of the Commission. 16/

13. NSP has considerable technical experience in the con-struction and operation of nuclear facilities. The operating personnel for the facility meet appropriate standards with respect to selection and training.17/

14. The record indicates that the applicant will be able to obtain sufficient funds to engage in the activities which would be authorized by a provisional operating license.18/

15. NSP has satisfied its present financial protection requirements under 10 CFR Part 140 of the Com:ission'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  ;

unused on the site, in the form of a Nucicar Energy Liability Insurance Association Policy No. NF-174, and by entering into 16/ Staf f Safety Evaluation p. 60 and Answer of the AEC Regulatory I Staff dated June 24, 1970.  ;

_1_7 / NSP's Summary pp. 30-32; Staff Safety Evaluation pp. 51-52. l 18/ Staf f Safety Evaluaticn pp. 56-57; Ansvar of the AEC Regulatory ,

Staff dated June 24, 1970.

.AAer _

t Indemnity Agreement No. B-42 with the Cocmission applicable to fuel storage. Part 140 also required that, for a litited author-ization such as that ccquested by NSP for initial fuel loading and low power startup testing at power levcis not exceeding five negawatts thermal. NSP must have and caintain financial protection in an amount equal to $4,500,000. NSP has obtained letters from the Nucicar Energy Liability Insurance Association and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters committing to provide aggre-gate financial protection of up to SS2 million, the taximum amount required by the Co:21ssion's regulations for a full power license for a f acility of this size. 19/

16. The cetivities to be conducted under the provisional operating licenac will be within the jurisdiction of the United.

States, and all of the directors and principal officers of NSP are United States citizens. NSP is not owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign govern-cent. The activities to be conducted do not involve any restricted data, but NSP has agreed to safeguard any such data which- might become involved in accordance with the Co= mission's regulations.

Special nuclear material for use cs fuel in the facility will be subject to Commission regulttions and vill be obtained from sources 4

of supply available for civiliar. purposes. 20/

l 19/ Financial Qualifica icns of Ncrthern E:ctes Pcuer Cocpany --

Testicony of C. F. Jchason; Stcf2 Sciety Evaluccion pp. 56-57.

20] Applicant's Summary p. 55 ; Scc:r Safaty Evaluatica p. 56.

1 l

I 1

• r l

17. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safcguards (ACES) l has reviewed the application and issued reports on January 10, 19 70, and June 16, 1970. The reports identified certain matters I l

for further consideration by the AEC regulatory staff and NSP.

1he reports concluded that the facility could be operated at power 1 levcis up to 167] megawatts thermal without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. 11/

18. Completion of de facility has been delayed by a number of labor difficulties. It is very near completion and all those portions of the facility required for fuel loading and low power startup testing will be complete approximately four weeks following the return of one craf t union now on strike. 22/

4

19. NSP testified that delays due to the regulatory process

! in the startup of the plant af ter it is complete and ready for i

j fuc1 loading will have at 1 cast three major adverse effects upon l

NSP and the public it serves:

1. Reduced reliability of electric power supply i

by generating margin and lowering of coal i

reserves in the Upper Midwest.

21/ Staff Safety Evaluation, Appendix A; Tr. p.1227.

22/ Tr. pp. 1334-1338.

2. Increased costs to NSP and its customers in excess of $1,100,000 pe r con th .

3. Increased detricental effects on environ-

, mental quality from electrical generation by older fossil-fueled plants not presently equipped with mode rn emission controls.

NSP also testified that such delays will also cause the General Electric Company to incur additional costs of $500,000 per conth of delay. Authority to load fuel without delay following comple-tion of Unit 1 is needed to a=cliorate these adverse effects. 23/

. 20. Normal post-hearing procedures, including the filing of proposed findings and conclusions by the parties, the preparation and issuance of an initial decision by the board, and the mininum period between initial decision and granting of the license, would l

mean that NSP could not expect a license, assuming one is ordered I

( by the board, sooner than about 50 days following reconvening and I

conclusion of the hearing. With no present schedule for recon-l

, vening the hearing and _ the probability of a near-tern settlement l

l of the craf t union strike, it is predictable that the present l

23/ Tr. pp.1340-1344; Tr. pp.1377-1410.

I i

l I

4 s-course of the proceeding would delay the startup of the plant if the motion for authority to load fuel and conduct low power startup testing is not granted.

21. Testimony was given in regard to the most severe acci-dent that might be associated with initial fuel loading and low power startup testing, assuming a five megawatt thermal equilibrium core power level. This is a control rod drop accident. Conse rva-tive assumptions were used relative to fission product release, transport, and behavior within the facility and to the environs by way of the standby gas treatment system filters and off-gas t

stack. The resultant radiological exposures'at the closest, site * -

boundary as a result of this accident are well within 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines. M /

1

22. The contentions of the intervenora as set forth in the record of the proceeding and the information adduced as a result of examination and cross-examination of witnesses by the inter-venors has raised no unanswered question as to safety with respect to NSP's proposed initial fuel loading and low power startup _ testing program.- With respect to that matter, there has;been no demonstra-tion that the matters of concern to the intervenors are inadequately i l l

4 24/ Tr. pp.1345-1348; Answer of AEC Regulatory Staff dated ,

June 24,1970.  !

l

)

1

. . I I . l

• i l

accommodated by the design of the facility, by the operating

[ plans and procedures , or .by the proposed operating -license. 25/

1 l~ l

23. As previously noted herein, this board, at the instance i

of intervenor MECCA, by subpoena, _' directed the Director of Regu-lation to furnish copics of all AEC Division- of ' Compliance = inspec-tion reports relating 'to the inspection of Unit 1 while under

! construction. In response to that subpoena, the Director of l'

i Regulation furnished the reports with certain deletions cf matters, i

the disclosure of which he determined would not_ be' in the public interest. 26/ The information deleted from the inspection reports-consisted of (1) names of persocc, other than AEC personnel, who .

1 i

! provided information during the -inspections;- (2) references to AEC t

internal memoranda, instructions, including inspection techniques, i

4 and meetings; (3) references to other identified facilities; and (4) informatien of a proprietary: nature. Category (4) deletions i

I constitute the - very substantial portion of the deleted material. .

i- .

NSP, on behalf of its contractors,_ offered to make such data avail-i i able to intervenors HECCA and Messrs. D ugan, et al. , forLt heir use i'

in conducting _ cross-excmination -in the hearing- subject to certain l'

res trictions. 27/ Intervenors ESCCA and Messrs. Dzugan, et al. ,

i 25/ Tr. pp. 1348-1358, i

26/ AEC Regulatory Staff Response Ldated May 8,19 70.

27/ Tr. pp. 1047-1050.

1 1

)

l-j .I

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

1

. - l t

'~

i-  :

rejected the offer objecting that it did not provide for full disclosure to the public of the proprietary data. 28/ the sole t

j remaining area of cross-examination is that which the intervenors 1

MECCA and Messrs. Dzugan, et al. , may wish to conduct on the basis of the inspection reports 29/ After notice by the board that it i

vould entertain a cotion by NSP for authority to load fuel and j conduct low power startup testing, both intervenors rejected the opportunity provided by the board to conduct any cross-examination based on the deleted version of the inspection reports furnished by the AEC regulatory staff without prejudice to any subsequent rights to conduct such cross-examination af ter final resolution l

f of the matter of the deletions. 30/ As to that matter, the board had announced its intention to certify certain questions to the 1

i Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Loard.

i

24. Since the intervenors have refused to undertake cross-examination of witnesses regarding the AEC regulatory staff inspec-i tion reports in their .present form, the. question is raised as to whether the record of this proceeding is sufficiently co=plete to i

i

. 28/ _ Tr. pp.1052-1053.

L i- 29/ - This sentence assumes- that NSP will be uphcid on its objection to further cross-examination by the intervenors on the basis of their inspection of the Operating Manual. Tr. pp . 1246-12 47.

30/ Tr. pp.1322-1324.

j. .

4 1

1 A

l .

l .

_13_

s warrant the granting of the NSP motion. Both NSP and the AEC regulatory staf f have taken the position that the AEC inspection

[ reports in their pre :at state together with the availability of I knowledgeable NSP and AEC regulatory staff witnesses provide an adequate basis for the conduct of meaningful cross-examination. 31/.

'Ihc intervenors-have rejected every opportunity to conduct such cross-examination and have also rejected, as previously noted, i

the opportunity to inspect proprietary infomation which constitutes j the bulk of the ~ deleted information. An examination of the present record regarding the various contentions of the intervenors as to

. the safety of the proposed fuc1 loading and low power startup testing program proposed by NSP indicates to this board that .the

} likelihood that cross-examinatien on the AEC inspection reports would Icad to any. serious question as to the safety of the operation of Unit'l in accord with the NSP motion is speculative. On the i

! other hand, the record is cicar that if this board were to deny the

NSP motion, the interests of NSP and its customers could

be seriously

[ - affected. Furthermore, the evidence offered by NSP _and the AEC regulatory staf f indicates with reasonable assurance that the oper-ation of Unit 1 as proposed in the NSF motion would not result in hazard to the health- and safety- of the public. ' Our review of the-  ;

k . .. .. .!

AEC inspection reports in the form furnished for .this record indi-I-

> cates no unresolved safety questions pcrtinent: tol the authorization - _!

31/ Tr. pp. 1326 and 1375. ,1 j-4 I

f

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

h 44 '

\'

requested by NSP in its cotion. Those tatters, the disposition of which is pending as identified in scaff Exbibit 5, which will be resolved as appropriate prior to verification of completeness of construction by the AEC regulatory staff, do not constitute unre-solved aafety questions.

25. The Notice of ilcaring in this proceeding set forth the issues to be considered by this board in conne . tion with the HSP -

application for a provisional crerating 1!:ense authorizing opera-tion of Unit 1 at 1670 tcravatts thermal. The NSP motion requests a provisional operating license nutncrizing only initial fuel load-ing and operatien up to five cegawatta thermLL. It cay be officially noticed that every light water power reactor cust go through a proc-ess of initial fuel loading, low power startup testing, and stepwise power ascensica before reaching the full licensed power lestl. The proposed form of provisional operating license introduced by the AEC regulatory staff 32/ included as an appendix the Technical Specifications which set forth the restrictions, conditions, and controls for the operation of Unit 1. Included in these Technical .

Specifications are appropriate restrictions dealing with catter pertinent to initial fuc1 loading cnd operation of Unit I up to five cegawat ts therrc,al. Both the /.EC regulctory stcff and the ACRS have reviewed the proposed Techt.ical Specif. cations. The provisions j[2/ Staff Exhibit 2.

l t

2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice provide broad authority to accede safety and licensing boards regarding the conduct of proceedings such as this. While the Notice of llearing does not i provide specific authority to this board to authorize a license

)

l such as that requested by hSP in its motion, it does grant to the board authority to authorize a license for full power opera-I tion of 1670 megawetts thermal. It necessarily follows that j

suthurity granted to this board to authorize the issuance of a

]

full power license carries with it authority to authorize the issuance of a provisional operating license for operation of Unit 1 at less than full power. It may also be officially noticed that potential radiological safety considerations for a unit of a given design power level crc proportional to the power Icyc1 at which the unit is actually operated. Such action is not inconsistent with the Act, the Commission's regulations or the Adm!.nistrative Procedure Act of 1946, as amended, provided, of course, that the board makes all necessary findiups with respect to the issucs set i

forth in the Notice of IIccring cnd tuat it follows the procedural requirements for the issuance of such a licence.

Con _clysions

26. k'ithout prejudice to thic. beard's consideration of the

, issues specified by the Cc: mission in its notice of hearing as 4

ps

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

4 . .

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 j testing at power levels up to a maximu of five cegawatts thermal i

d withc ut the reactor vessel head in places j a. NSP has submitted to the Coc: mission all

technical information required by Pro.*isional i

Construction Fernit No. CPPR-31, the Act, and the rules and regulations of

• he Cocmission to cocplete the application for the provisional operating license; - .

b. Construction of Unit i has proct. tded, and there is recsonabic cscurance that it will bc coepicted, in confornity with ProvisionL Gn-struction Permit No. CPPR-31, the application, ss amended, che provisicas of the Act, and the i

. rules and regulations of the Commission; 1 l

c. There is reasonable tssurance (i) that the j activities cuthorized by the provisional oper-ating license can be conducted without endanger-  ;

1 ing the health and scfety of the public, ant t

I g,

I.

,,e--+- -.r- -y ,- ,3-,-e.-e o y .,.a .w-.--i- ,<-----,.w - v-m , -e r -

-ma l

• o  ;

I

• l

. 19

$ j i

(ii) that such activities vill be conducted .

in compliance with rules and regulations of j the Commission;

d. NSP is technically and financially qualified I

< to engage in the activities authorized by the i

provisional operating license in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commis-j sion; I

1 c. NSP has furnished or vill timely furnish to the

. Conadssion proof of financial protection in -

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

of the Com=ission's regulations;

f. There is reasonabic assurance that Unit i vill be ready for initial loading with nuclear fuel I within 90 days from the date of issuance of the previsional operating license; and

g. Issuance of the provisional operating license under the terns and conditions proposed will not be inimical to the conmon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

l l

l t

el b

4

)

4 i

Order l

27. Pursuant to the Act and the Conmission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Regulation issue to Northern States Power Company a provisional operating license authorizing fuel loading for the Monticello Nucicar Generating Plant , Unit 1, and low power startup testing at po9er levels up to a maximum of five megawatts thermal and without the reactor vessel head in place.

. upon verification by the Commission's Division of Compliance that the Monticello Nucicar Generating Plant, Unit 1, is complete and j

ready for initial fuc1 loading as described in the testimony (Tr.

pp.1334-1337 and 1433-1437) . IT IS FURTilER ORDELED, in accordance with Section 50.57(e) of the commission's regulations, that this Intermediate Initial Decision shall become effective ten days af ter its issuance subject to (i) the review thereof and further decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, upon exceptions filed by any party, and (ii) such order as th(- Atomic Safety and 9

i pp '**9 ^

Licensing Appeal board may enter upon such exceptions or upon

! its own motion within 45 days af ter the issuance of this Inter-i mediate Initial Decision.

1 ATodi1C SAFETY AND LICENSIh*G BOARD l

1 John C. Geyer

• Eugene Greuling Yalentine B. Deale, Chaiman Dated:

1 0

0

.