DOCKET NO. 50-171-CP IN THE MATTER OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Issued February 2, 1962 APPEARANCES: Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, and Vincent P. McDevitt, Esquire, on behalf of the Applicant. Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esquire, on behalf of the Regulatory Staff of the Atomic Energy Commission. William M. Gross, Esquire, and Joseph L. Cohen, Esquire, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Intervenor. INITIAL DECISION By: J. D. BOND, Presiding Officer PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This proceeding involves an application filed on July 25, 1960, by Philadelphia Electric Company for a permit to construct a 115 megawatt (thermal) high-temperature, gas-cooled nuclear reactor. In response to requests from the AEC staff for supplemental technical information, amendments to the application were filed in September 1960 (Amendment No. 1), August 1961 (Amendment No. 2) and October 1961 (Amendment No. 3). 2. The Commission issued a Notice of Hearing on November 8, 1961, which was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1961 (26 F.R. 10736), and which specified the following issues to be considered at the hearing: (1) Whether the applicant has submitted sufficient information to provide reasonable assurance that a utilization facility of the general type proposed in the application can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public; (2) Whether there is reasonable assurance that the technical information omitted from and required to complete the application will be supplied; (3) Whether the applicant is technically qualified to design and construct the proposed facility; (4) Whether pursuant to Section 50.40 (b) of the AEC's regulations the applicant is financially qualified to design and construct the facility; and (5) Whether the construction of the reactor will be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. The specified issues were not controverted by the applicant's Answer, filed pursuant to Section 2.736 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, and no request for their modification was otherwise made in the proceeding. 3. On December 1, 1961, upon applicant's motion, a prehearing conference was held to determine the time for the exchange of prepared testimony and other procedural matters. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene on December 8, 1961. Applicant and the AEC staff interposed no objection thereto and the petition was granted by order issued December 14, 1961. As indicated in the statement of appearances, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was represented throughout the hearing by counsel, who expressed concern about public health and safety considerations relating to the proposed facility, and especially its gaseous and liquid waste disposal systems. 4. A public hearing was held, as designated in the published notice, on December 18, 1961 in the auditorium of the Commission's headquarters at Germantown, Maryland. At the commencement thereof a member of the public made a limited appearance, pursuant to Section 2.731 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, and made a voluntary unsworn statement on the record but offered no testimony upon the issues involved in this proceeding. The direct evidence adduced at the hearing was in the form of prepared written testimony and exhibits presented under oath by seven witnesses on behalf of the applicant and two witnesses on behalf of the AEC staff; each witness was presented for such further oral examination as any participant desired to conduct. The qualifications of each witness were fully stated in the evidence and each is found to be an expert witness whose testimony has been given full credence. 5. Upon completion of the hearing of evidence, provisions were made by approved agreements of record for the filing of proposed findings and conclusions by the parties. It was there stated, and the subsequently filed pleadings demonstrate a recognition, that this hearing is a legal proceeding wherein the applicant, to secure the license it seeks, must show by an orderly presentation of competent evidence that its qualifications and its proposal should be judged to meet the requirements of the law as specified in the issues. An accomplished purpose of the hearing was to afford to the AEC Regulatory Staff, and to other interested parties, a public forum in which to test and to seek to rebut or to corroborate any contentions by the applicant, which were deemed to warrant such challenge or support. Upon the basis of the hearing record so made, the Commission must decide whether the applicant has sufficiently met the burden of proof so as to justify the granting of the authorization requested. In this proceeding, the attorneys for the applicant and for the AEC Regulatory Staff have presented jointly supported proposed findings, conclusions, order, and form of construction permit. That pleading so appropriately embodies the legal evaluation required in administrative law decisions 1 that 1 1 The ultimate conclusion herein does not rest on a technically based judgment that the facts and opinions stated by the expert witnesses are scientifically true and correct; instead, the legal judgment is that this hearing record contains substantial evidence, including facts and opinions declared by skilled experts, to warrant the stated affirmative findings upon the issues. This decisional approach, but not necessarily the discussional path and terminus, is the same whether there be unanimity or contrariety in the expertly marshalled facts and opinions of record. it is adopted and it comprises substantially all of this decision except for this paragraph and except for the footnotes which appear herein. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has expressed no opposition to the findings, conclusions and order as proposed; the decisional record supports them. FINDINGS OF FACT 6. Applicant is a public utility corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its general office located at 1000 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its directors and principal officers are citizens of the United States and the corporation is not owned, controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation or a foreign government. The company supplies electric service in Philadelphia, electric and gas service in the five surrounding Pennsylvania counties and steam heat service in portions of Philadelphia and West Chester, Pennsylvania. Through a subsidiary, electric service is also supplied in parts of two Maryland counties. 7. Applicant has contracted with the Commission to design and construct the proposed nuclear power plant, and to operate it for a period of five years under the Commission's Power Reactor Demonstration Program. Bechtel Corporation is applicant's prime contractor for the design and construction of the plant. General Atomic Division of General Dynamics Corporation, as subcontractor to Bechtel, is responsible for the nuclear steam supply system and under a contract with applicant will supply fuel elements for the first five years of plant operation. A program of research and development for the plant is being conducted by General Atomic under a contract between it and the Commission. 8. Associated with applicant in the project is High Temperature Reactor Development Associates, Inc. (HTRDA), a non-stock, nonprofit corporation formed by applicant and 52 other utility companies interested in acquiring technical information, experience and training in the design, construction and operation of the facility. Applicant and HTRDA have contracted with Bechtel Corporation to design and construct the plant for a fixed price of $24,500,000, HTRDA to pay Bechtel $16,500,000 with the balance of $8,000,000 to be paid by applicant. Other costs, including fuel elements, additional equipment and services, land, off-site transmission and operator training bring the total estimated cost of the facility to approximately $31,300,000. Applicant is soundly financed and has adequate resources at its command with which to meet its obligations toward the project. The member companies of HTRDA are likewise financially qualified to assume their commitments, by virtue of which HTRDA has more than sufficient funds to meet its $16,500,000 obligation to Bechtel Corporation. Accordingly, it is found that the applicant is financially qualified to design and construct this facility and to assume financial responsibility for the allocation of special nuclear material requested in its application. 9. Among the applicant's 9,100 employees, more than 260 are professional engineers directly engaged in power plant design and engineering. Since 1952 its personnel have participated in other reactor projects for training and experience in reactor design, construction and operation. Bechtel Corporation is one of the world's largest designers and constructors of government works and industrial facilities and developers of natural resources. It has been engaged in nuclear activities since 1949, its projects including the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, the Humboldt Bay Boiling Water Reactor Plant, the Big Rock Point Boiling Water Reactor Plant and the Sodium Graphite Reactor Plant at Hallam, Nebraska. General Atomic Division of General Dynamics Corporation, with one of the world's largest privately owned centers of diversified nuclear research and development, employs a staff numbering more than 1,200, including a technical staff of more than 750 engineers, chemists, metallurgists, theoretical physicists, experimental physicists and technicians. A large number of its senior staff have previously been associated with the development, design and construction of reactor systems in the United States, Canada, and England. In conjunction with Bechtel Corporation and General Atomic, this applicant is found to be qualified to design and construct the proposed facility. 10. The nuclear reactor proposed is graphite-moderated and helium cooled, with a nominal net electrical output of 40,000 kilowatts. The system is of the solid fuel type employing fuel and fertile material in the form of carbides dispersed in graphite and encased in a low permeability graphite sleeve. The reactor core, located within a steel pressure vessel, is cylindrical in shape and includes an array of fuel elements, control rods and safety shutdown mechanisms surrounded by a graphite reflector. Heat produced by the core will be removed by the forced circulation of helium which enters the reactor vessel at about 634° Fahrenheit, passes through the core, exits the core at about 1,358° Fahrenheit, flowing equally to each of two external coolant loops. The hot helium enters the steam generators and generates high pressure superheated steam. Circulation in each loop will be accomplished by means of a centrifugal circulator. 11. The steam cycle for the reactor is typical of conventional power plants. Feedwater enters the steam generator at approximately 420° Fahrenheit at full power and the superheated steam emerges from the outlet of the steam generator at approximately 1,005° Fahrenheit and a pressure of 1,559 psia. 12. Certain features which are novel or represent extensions of current reactor practice will be incorporated in the Peach Bottom Reactor, including a substantially all-graphite core, unclad fuel material, dependence on low permeability graphite as structural and fission product barrier material, purging of fission products from fuel elements, trapping and collection of fission products,2 reactor control and safety mechanisms and high operating temperatures. However, an extensive research and development program has been under way for over four years to provide necessary technical information as a basis for these features. The evidence of record shows that the results of continuing research, development, and testing concerning these and other conceptual design features will be included in the technical 2 The preliminary design for the fission product trapping system has been completed and detailed design work is now in progress. information to be submitted and evaluated from time to time, and before operating authority is granted. 13. The reactor core consists of 804 fuel elements, each element being 12 feet long and 3.5 inches in diameter. The active core diameter will be approximately 9.16 feet and the active core height 7.5 feet. Fuel within the active section is in the form of particles of uranium carbide-thorium carbide coated with pyrolytic carbon, included in graphite matrix fuel compacts, the compacts being located within the low permeability graphite sleeves. Above the active section, the top part of each element will consist of a graphite reflector region and a fuel handling knob). Below the active section the bottom part of the element contains a graphite reflector region and an internal fission product trap. Each element rests on a standoff pin on a core support plate. There is no similar fixed support for the top of the core. Lateral support for the elements will be provided by movable side reflector pieces which exert a radial force on the core array. The suitability of this method of supporting the core has been confirmed by the operation of a half-linear-scale flow model containing all main components of the proposed core. 14. The proposed fuel element design involves the application of graphite under conditions for which there is no previous experience in operating reactors. Particularly involved is the use of low permeability graphite in complex structural arrangements at conditions of temperature, temperature gradients and radiation exposures which are more severe than for present practice. A significant part of the supporting research and development program has been directed toward resolution of the effects of radiation exposure, the structural integrity and dimensional stability, the effective thermal conductivity of the material and the possible mobility of fuel, neutron poison and fission products within the fuel material. The research and development program relating to the fuel elements, as fully described in the record, has shown results to support, and no reason to doubt, that the proposed elements can be developed to operate in a satisfactory manner. 15. The temperature coefficient of reactivity has been studied extensively in the research and development program. The most significant temperature effects in this reactor arise from the temperature dependence of the neutron thermal utilization and the Doppler broadening of the thorium resonances (Doppler effect). A strong Doppler effect is important inasmuch as it serves to rapidly reduce the core reactivity during conditions of increasing fuel temperature. The over-all temperature coefficient performs a similar function but with a considerably delayed effect. The Doppler coefficient was determined by calculational methods and results checked experimentally. 16. In order to enhance a strong negative over-all temperature coefficient, about 5 kilograms of rhodium will be included in the graphite fuel elements. This feature results in a strong contribution to the over-all temperature coefficient and some contribution to the prompt coefficient. It has been shown that both the prompt an over-all temperature coefficient remain negative at all times during life and at all obtainable graphite temperatures. The kinetics of the core have |