ML19308B153
| ML19308B153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1967 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912130806 | |
| Download: ML19308B153 (7) | |
Text
, _.
- f. ? G 1
-)
n_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION C0!O!ISSIONERS:
Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman Wilfrid E. Johnson James T. Ramey Gerald F. Tape In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY
/
DOCKET NOS. 50-269 (Oconee Nuclear Station, I
50-270 Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
50-287
))
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On August 10, 1967, eleven cities and towns in North Carolina and one North Carolina corporation filed a joint motion to dismiss the application filed herein.
The applicant and the staff filed answers to the motion on August 14 and 25, 1967, respectively.
On August 28, an atomic safety and licensing board denied the motion to dismiss the application respecting Oconee Units 1 and 2 and deferred decision respecting Oconee Unit 3 until further data are available.
In accordance with Section 2 730(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practiice, the board referred these rulings to the Commission for review.
The board's order summarizes the principal allegations of the motion and the principal assertions of the applicant 7912130 hob G
.)
' and the staff in opposition to the motion.
The issue may be stated essentially as follows:
Is the application properly filed under Section 104 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("the Act"), as an application for a license for utilization facilities ".
. involved in the conduct of research and development activities leading to the demonstration of the practical value of such facilities for industrial or commercial
" so that the Commission has juris-purposes.
diction to issue constr;uction permits and licenses for Oconec Units 1, 2 and 3 under onis section?
The Commission is satisfied th'at the documents filed by the parties in the proceeding before the board adequately set forth the arguments on both sides of the issue and that additional briefs are unnecessary, For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the board's determination as to Units 1 and 2.
We believe that the licenses, if issued, may properly be
~
issued under Section 104 b.,
that is, as licenses for facilities
. involved in the conduct of research and development activities leading to the demonstration of the practical value of such facilities for industrial or commercial purposes.
We agree with the board's view that the definition of "research
, mm, w
-n
- - ~
-m e-ee..
.. +
,r.
l and development" in the Act and the. Commission's regulations is sufficiently broad that it encompasses as " development" a demon-stration that will provide'a basis for commercial evaluation.
The construction and operation of the proposed facilities would be sufficiently related to the demonstration of the practical value of such reactors for commercial purposes to permit the pro-ceeding to be conducted under Section 104 b. of the Act.
We additionally note the board's statement in its order that "there are associated with the Duke reactors the specific research and development items characteristic of the cases which have been considered to date by the Commission."
The board's order mentions a number of such research and development items.
From the pattern established by the Act for the licensing of utilization facilities, Section 104 b. is the appropriate section for the licensing of facilities of the type covered by this application.
Section 104 a. facilities are those for use in medical therapy.
Section 104 c. facilities are those research and testing facilities, not designed for the generation of power, which may be used for research and training purposes.
The licensing authority under Section 103 is not appropriate for this application.
Section 103 facilities are those of a type which the Commission has found, in accordance with Section 102, to have been sufficiently developed to be of practical value for industrial or commercial purposes.
The Commission has recently considered and rej ected on two
m i
~
4 occasions in rule making proceedin6s the question of whether such a finding should be made with respect to some type or types of light water, nuclear powe7 reactors. 1/
In our denial of the second petition, we said, in part:
"Pending the completion of scaled-up plants, and the information to be obtained from their operation, the Commission remains of the view that there has not yet been sufficient demon-stration of the cost of construction and operation of light water, nuclear electric plants to warrant makin6 a statutory finding that any types of such facilities have been sufficiently developed to be of practical value within the meaning of section 102 of the Act."
There appears to be no basis at the present time for altering this view.
The mere characterization of the reactors by the applicant as " commercial" nuclear stations has no probative effect on the determination of whether such reactors are still developmental for purposes of statutory Categorization as to appropriate class of license.
As stated in the Staff Memorandum accompanying the Commission's first determination regarding a finding of practical value:
It is entirely appropriate for' manufacturers and utilities to base their economic estimates on forecasts rather than to avait-substantial demonstration of cost once the basic technology has been proven; 1/
Denial of Petition for Rule Mahins, 31 F.R. 220
(
(January 7, 1966); Notice of Denial of Petition for
~
Rule Makins, 31 F.R. 16732 (December 30, 1966).
-)
5-however, the staff considers that the Commission's statutory responsibility under section 102 of the Act requires more than strong belief that the next generation of plants uill operate at anticipated costs.
The board's order deferred decision on the motion to dismiss the application as to Oconee Unit 3 We believe it appropriate that we reserve decision on Unit 3 until our review of the board's initial decision.
It is therefore ORDERED, that:
The board's denial of the motion to dismiss the application with respect to Oconec Units 1 and 2 and the board's deferral of the motion to dismiss the application with respect to Oconee Unit 3 are hereby affirmed.
Dated:
September 8, 1907 By the Commission.
\\
Eb" W. B. McCool Secretary w..~._...
__r.
w e
c~--
11 m
..J, S
t.
)
)
.,. ;S}
2
.x..
ss Y,
ij UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,j; a
ATOMIC ENERGY COM4ISSION
~f j
l In the Matter of
)
)
DOCKET NO. 50-271 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER
)
CORPORATION
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MEMORAITDUM AND ORDER dated September 8,1967 issued by the Cc=21ssion have been served on
'the following by deposit in the United States Mail, air or first class, this eighteenth day of September 1967:
Valentine B. Deale, Esq.
Porter E. Noble, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pove,r Board Corporation
/
1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW 77 Grove Street Suite 504 Rutland, Vermont 05701 Wanhington, D.C.
20036 Jchn D. Carbine, Esq.
i Mr. R. B. Briggs, Director Ryan, Smith & Carbine Molten-Salt Reactor Progran 98 Merchants acv Oak Ridge National Laboratory Rutland, Vemont 05701 P. O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 Honorable James L. Oakes Attorney General Dr. Eugene Greuling State of Ver=ont Professor of Physics Office of the Attorney General Duke University Montpelier, Vemont 05602 Durham, North Carolina 27706 Honorable Jonathan N. Brownell Dr. Clark Goodman Assistant Attorney General Professor of Physics and State of Ve =ont Chair =an of Department Office of the Attorney General University of Housten Montpelier, Vemont 05602 3801 Cullen Boulevard Ecuston, Texas 77004 Honorable Elliott L. Richardson Attorney General Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
Cc=2cnvealth of Massachusetts Mrs Nancy W. Truscott State House Reguletm7 Staff Boston, Massachusetts 02233 U. S. Ato::ric Energy Chasion Washington, D.C.
20545 Honorable R. Peter Shapiro Assistant Attorney General Jchn A. Ritsher, Esq.
State of New Hampshire Allen O. Eaton, Esq.
State House Ropes & Gray Concord, New Hampshire 03301 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 l
~
=
^
9, 2-Mr. Rc6er J. Coe, Vice President Vement Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Engineering Office W 1 Stuart Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Mr. Albert A. Cree, President -
Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation 77 Grove Street
, Rutland, Vermont 05701 George Spiegel, Esq.
2600 Vir61nia Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.
20037
(, fti lAJML/
Office of the Secretary cc:
V. 3. Deale T. F. Engelhardt A. A. Wells F.
Karas
. I. Snith 4
i l
e
\\
l e
M.
1 9
6b*~'
~ wasee ee
--w w-.-
,