ML19308C013

Initial Decisions Ordering Issuances of Provisional CP for TMI-1

ML19308C013
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	05/16/1968
From:	Bond J, Stratton R, Williams C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Shared Package
ML19308B978	List: ML19308B977 ML19308B992 ML19308C001 ML19308C009 ML19308C013
References
TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001170754
Download: ML19308C013 (4)

Text

a o+

=

I t>

Docn r.N*o. ~,0-253 NEEE NIICLE.\\It IN TIIE MNTTEll OF METICOPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY T YANKEE NU-(TilitEE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAll POWElt STATION UNIT 1) lasued.11ay 10,1903 '

l J

Al'PF. ARAN cES

• 47 uid Churnog, Esq.. and Sasnuct 11. Russell, Esq., on behulf of the Appliennt.

}

y homas F. Enyc14urdt, Esq., on behalf of the U.S. Atomic 1:nergy Comruission egulatory Staff.

i Willian: M. Gross. Esq., Asst. Attorney General on behalf of the Common-l wealth of l'ennsylvania.

INITIAL DECISION 1

l'nELIMINAnY STATRIENT

! 's re filed a petition for 3

1. This proceeding involves.the al? plication of Metropolitan Edison of April 8, 1008, 4 i

n's exceptions to the Company (Applicant) for n [irovisional construction permit to con-l-

ision. The applicant struct a pressurized water reactor, desi[nned to operate initially at core l,

power levels up to 2M megawatts thermal), to be located at the ic State's reeptest for Applicant's Three Mile Island Nuclear Station m Londonderry Town.

tate of New Hamp-ship, Dauphin County. Pennsylvania. The application was reviewed

,f its previous excep-by the I?cgulatory Staff (Stati) of the Atomic Energy Conunission i

r Memorandmn and (Conunission) and the Advisory Conunittee on Iteactor Safeguards entions embodied in (ACIIS); each concimled that' the proposed facility can be con-

'portmg memoranda structed at the proposed site without undue risk to the health and why the State's con-safety of the public.

late's p,ri,ncipal con-

2. Pursuant to duly published notices and orders, a hearinn was i*

i nur position that the hehl before this Afdmic Safety and Licensing Iloard (Iloar71) in e;

ing law th>cs no in a nuclear fac,t in-Middletown, Dauphin County,' Pennsylvania, on April 10-11, 1968.

ility.

Supplemental verified evidence in writing was thereafter presented i or ig t1 es and was admitted by Iloard order date May 10,1908, and the hearing i.

record was then closed.2 The Appheant has filed proposed findmgs of onsideration filed by fact and conclusions of law, and the Staff has expressed its concur-4 rence in the Applicant's pleading. The Conunonwealth of Pennsyl-vania, a hearing participant under Section 2.715(c) of the Conunis-

i i

Conmssiox, sion's Itules of Practice, has expressed-by letter dated May 8, IDGS-f the Commissic.n.

no disagreement with the positions taken by the parties. Ibsed upon a review of the entire record, including the pleadings, the Iloard has derived and here expresses its findings and conclusions; they include and endorse in substance the material and significant proposals ad-vanced by t he parties.

8 The cited order summartred the procedural steps heretofore foHowed to cotoplete the evidentiary heartog; the background and detaHe therent are shown in the record tran.

g scripts of the hear 6ng. and of tl e girchentlur conferruce w hich was held on March **D 19G5.

]

101 5

I

. tr

~

4 4.,

• y.

' " * *I o'

• ** [

IW 4

W

4V-

• /

• 7"'

g,

~

N n

+.,

. '.. Of s ool rro 7Cf 4 W 'h 8-*

g e

-~..-- -

s.-

..s-- m

,3f.v 3as* Wee U O-1 E}Nd.

s.,

s+

-h'+1 2d -

MN

=+O*-

DNN' - Og#.Sh d*N bl*. M_'

i..

(,.'

102 ATo3nc Exnnar co3:3nssiox nt:ronTs po+d flin!'

Fixmscs or Facr the purpm

3. The parties to the proceeding are the Applicant. ami the StafT.

abmnlant i;.

~

tially siin.

The Commonwealth of l'ennsylvania participated specially as noted above. Limited appeniance statements were inade by the Chairman l

tho clomi -

i and mitiu of the Dauphin County Board of Conunissioners and on behalf of the i

Board and 3Iiddletown Area Association of the IIarrisburg Area Chainber of 1

Numbers Commerce. The record shows that no party or person opposed a grant Power Co of the application under consideration. This is not a contested pro-ceeding, as that is defined in Section 21(n) of the Commission's Rules Units 1,0 :

" ", Ped.

7. The :

of Practice. Therefore pursuant to the Notice of IIe trin eReg.10S2,30S

- facility n:

and the le.

function is to " determine whether the application and the reconi of the I

proceeding contain suflicient information, and the review of the np-tial, to san, facdity de-plication by the Commission's regulatory statf has been ndequate, to hazards im sulport," favorable findings upon stated technical, financml, and safety feat pobey issues. and the issuance of the provisional constinction permit

! ocumentn.

as proposed by the Director of Regulation in the Notice of IIcaring.

1 mg record.

4. The proposed atomic energy prnvered elect ricity generating fa.

l phennt, p cility is to be situated on Three Mile Island in the Susquehanna River, about 10 miles southeast of IIarrisburg, Pennsylvania. The land ex.

qualihcat(

The Stati -

3 clusion area, owned entirciv by Applicant, has a mininnun radius of proj q d 1

2,000 feet. The low popuhitidu distanco in specified as 2 miles and excludes the comnuunty of Middletown which has a polmlation of imtig,The.\\

atn n c 8..

about 12,000. The nearest, population center, with more than 25,000 inhabitants, begins about 7 miles away and consists of the towns of the final d; i

• 1 Steciton and Harrisburg. The plant dhien reliabilitt m.d safety cri.

Such ad.in teria will take into account the possibility of credi'ble carthquakes, l

projects e ence conce.

floods, and severe meteorological conditions as well as local hydro-(a)0-1 logical and ground water conditions.

(b) ( <

5. The facility will be located about 2.5 miles southeast of the (c)lp Olmsted State A'irport. The probability of an aircraft incident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station is projected to be extremely re.

(d) (j 4

(c) L

, a mote.' The principal structures of the Station will be designed to (f) X withstand a significant rance of aircraft strike loadings, incimling (g) l;-

such secondarv etTects as missiles, fire, pressure and temperature. The Board finds n'o reason to challenge or doubt the uncontroverted con.

D. Beyo:.

i clusion of the witnesses for the parties, and of the ACRS report, that are som7 Allirmativ the airport proximitv factor does not contradict reasonab!c assurance record w t,hehearly that the proposed fa'cility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the p'ublic.

{'

G. The findin'gs as proposed by the Applicant and supported by~

j "f"""'# !"

I "' _

related features and des. e detail the planned facility and its safetv-the Staff describes in som i

and ther v ign criteria. The record supports those pro-mony n't ::

3 were defh 8 This anodified findine cradc< assewing probative crmilbinty to the statistical analyses jghnpppg]/

v i ~

In the record. The Apphrant comparably es a. led adocating its safety reliance ne between construct.t,

improtiabinty of urrurrence nnd impre nabihty of structures. The Stat conclu.lon is not anore tucantn:: fully prectre on thlm ladut than le the ACIN report whh h states: "Although

'j the probability of an airpl.ine hitting the station be to ry small, the apidicant has under-4 taken to pruside prinelpal structures and cominments of the station with the capability

• It sW'T' including effects such of withstanding atrerait strike loa <nnes nier a rance of conditions, The reartor building, noard in t-8, as secondary anisadle*, fire. nnd tire..ure and temperature effects J.

control building, f uct hamtling bulbling, ; sillary huudine, and tutermediate buHdine C"*3fT 't e m -

g will have the nercswary tuoditicatlous to assure the capabl!!ty of bringing the plant to a

[nstitute tU safe Shutdown condition."

i A

t q

!l 5j i

i m

--.y -

-e

,~

nn, G.% G,,y

. ~. i.-- k h?; _ ~#O,

i*

M*

g y

y Q

9" l *

- _' 1 l

&jj u

[g, A

a.

s k

str.TuorouTAN Entsox coh!PANY 103 I

po-ed findings, hot t heir iteration heie is elecmed mmecessary to incet the i

abun[nirguises of this decisional review. It is pointed ont-as t he record danti t

tially sim,v shows-that. t his miefcar pow er plant project is,si,th-tan-

'e Ftaff.

dar, in all safety-related grirainetgrs mypt for sitn,ig, to s noted i

'airena n l

the closed cycle pre +nrized water scactor units which were reviewed forthe and authorized for constinction by an Atom,ic Safety an,d Licensmg nher of Board and by the Commission in the conte-ted pro yedmg (Docket i

rant Numbers 50-2G9,50-270 and 50-257) upon the appheation of Duke l'ower Company to build 'and operate the Oconee Nuclear Station d

ro-i.

a; nules

}

Units 1,2 and 3.'

7. The application and the record contain a description of the site Fed.

[E>ard's and the basis for its suitability, a detailed descrNtion of the proposed dof the

. facility including those,iyaetor systems and feat.es wluch are essen-

~

tial to safety, an analysis of the safety features provided,deiits and for m the the ap.

facility design and an evaluation of various postulated acci inte' to hazards involv,ed in the operation of such a facility anal the eng, eered e[tpnd m

rmit safety features ;yrovided to lim,it.t heir effects. Extensive tistimony and Icaring.

dociunentary evalence concermng these matters are set out in the hear-ing record. The evidence shows the technical qualifications of the Ap-fa.

1

,;n,h er' 3 li pheant, including those of its cont ractors, and the financial i

qualifications of the Applicant,4 tion, including considerationi of thet,o design and c

[md ex.

The Staffs review of the applic dins of les and Inyposed facility's safety features unportant to the prevention and

,,;on or nutigation of accidents,is found to be ndequate.

c8,The Applicant and the Statf recognize that. in order to develop

,.n',ooo 1

-,u,g or the final design of the project furtljer information and data are needed._

11v cri.

Such additional data will he aegmred from research and develogunent 4[imkes.

projects and by evaluation of accumulatmg o m atmg reactor experi-

-v di o.

ence concernmg the followmg items:

t a) Once-throuch steam generator; of In.

b) CTiiitiTriMdiWiiinutT-

) ng the c) In-core neut ron detectors; I-alv re.

d) Core thermal and hydraulic design;

'[

nldto (f) Xenon osediation cont rol; andEmergency core cooling and core barrel check v c

)

i!

hnlin, a e. Tif.

(g) Use of sodium thiosulphnte for iodine removal.

,.d cou.

D. Beyond the findings and conclusions advocated by the parties ut.that am some matters of procedure and substance deemed sigmficant.

~ '

Allirinative judgment as'to the sniliciency of the application and the

-u rance

. to the record was etreetively aided by the Applicai!t's written responses at the hearmg to numerous exploratory questmns wluch were rmsed _

• d hv during the prehearis!g conference. Similarly. areas of initial concern

" I"'F" about, the StatTs review were su-nested hv the Board at prehearm-and they were adequatelv illuminEed hv tiIe Stairs sup demental test ruony at, the hearing. Not all qaestions about.-afety tbat were asked f

+ P m-were definitivelv or finally answered; but this aura of uncertainty

' ;*t,;

inherently characterizes Conunission hearings involving provisional ~

q;,g,t construction permits. The applicable rules and the stated issues recog-

. w.d..r.

, N,$

8 It shouhi be empha lred that the findine and conclu4tann and order mada b this itoard in this prm eeding do not at un re=t nean the actinns taken in the Duke homer

,n n,,t i

ti tm Conipany suatter, nather, thle Initlai liecl.lon l< derived frorn an craluation of this heartnst s

a g g,, ;

record which l$ defluad in the Adminhtrante Procedure Act and Is therein prescribed to 7

4 constitute the esclustre record for decluton, et e

i

+

3 % e m.: n

~,

, + ~.. a 4 wn -

• g',

e S

=.

o

$*9 m 4A '*

% e[ (ht_ _,

a,_'

F M

• I

^""

a i

104 rro.suc Exnncy co.st.stissiox ncroirrs e

l'.

nizo that sointions to inany design piohlenis are to lie derived duiing construction. The resourecs and conanitinents of flie Applicant to develop needed answers and the aseigned and proclainied responsi-

, i hitities of the Statt to follow and review the safetv. aspects of the #

growing design and con.st ruction ell'on is a trord t he degiree of reasonable assurance essential to the lloanti concludoits u]Tiiiittiinitr16iiiiFissues liefore it. The application and the recont of the proceeding contain sullicient inforination,:unt the review hy the Conmiission's regulatory 1

Statt has been :nlequate, to suppoit the findings proix> sed to be nnule and the provi.ional construction permit proposed to he issued by the Director of 1 rgulation.

10. l'ursuant. to the Act ninl the Conunission's regulations, ir is Oraa:nr.n this tcth day of.Tlay, ItHN that the Director of llegulation issuo to.Tletrognilitan Edison Company a provisional construction perinit substantially in the forin of Appendix "A" to the.%tice of licaring on this application which was published on January 27, IDGS at 33 Fed, l!cg.1082.

4 IT is Feirrut:n Ononn:n,in necordance with 10 CFIt g 2.7G0,9.702, and 2.761 that this initial Decision shall he ettective inunediately and

~

shall constitute the final netion of the Conunission foity-five (-15) days 4,

after the date of issuance, subject to the review thereof and furth'er decision by the Conunission upon its own motion or upon exceptions filed pursuant to the cited rules.

J tronic Sargr_naLienxsixa Ilo.um, Ildfu, d. Sruxrrox.

Cunia Wiu,r.uis.

J. D. Boxu, Chairman.

)

1 l

\\

.d I

4 k'

6 h

9 d

• l 1

i

(

1

}.a 6

i j 'I

.Ii 4'.

-. - =

i.1'G"1-Q,gM y_

o r

M e

% g d '

• • ~

4

-w e k4

+

, Ae "W

s f'

.s Y

y MA

'