ML19312C343
| ML19312C343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1967 |
| From: | Buck J, Jensch S, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312C344 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912130875 | |
| Download: ML19312C343 (6) | |
Text
,
Y k
q 1'
&c w pe.2 m 'e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NICMIC ENERGY COMSSION i
IN HE MATTER OF
)
)
DOCKET NOS. 50-269 IUKE POWER COMPANY
)
50-270 (Oconee Nuclear Station
)
50-287 Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DI?M SS APPLICATION REPECTING OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIS 1 AND 2 AND DEFERRING DECISION RESPECTING OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 3 On August 11, 1967, a joint motion to dismiss the application herein was filed with the Commissien by Piedmont Cf ties Power Supply, Inc. (" Piedmont") and the Cities of Statesville, High Point, Lexington, Monroe, Shelby, and Albemarle, and the Towns of Cornelius, Drexel, Granite Falls, Newton and Lincolnton, all in North Carolina.
'Ihe motion alleged, among other things, that the Con: mission does not have jurisdiction to grant the application by Duke Pover Company
(" Duke") for Section lok (b) construction pemits and licenses for the reason that the proposed Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, vould not be research and development f acilities contemplated by the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (the "Act").
'Ibe motion further alleges that the proposed three nuclear units are designed for an electric generating capacity of 2,600,000 kilovatts, which would con-p*.
.t.te 60 percent of the total demand on Duke's system as of December 1, 1966.
"Ae total estimated cost of the facilities is 0
M fg91213 c,
~.
p
~ ',
- ~'
$3ho minion. Se petition further aneges that Duke intends to use the proposed nuclear facilities for ccumnercial purposes, and that there is no showing by Duke that the facilities either are needed or vill be used for research and developent leading to the demonstration of the practical value of such facilities for indus-trial or conenercial purposes.
Other allegations by the novants re-late to their endeavors to purchase a portion of the proposed nuclear facilities and to procure a6reements to wheel electric energy to the several purchaser movants.
Duke filed an answer to the motion and therein alleges that insofar as the supply of electric energy and rates thereof are con-cerned, this Commission has no jurisdiction to make such determina-tions. Duke further alleges that research and developent activities are involved in the proposed constniction and operation of Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, and that there has not as yet been any operating experience of reactors of the type to be used at the Oconee Station.
Duke asserts that the Conmission does have jurisdiction to grant the application for construction pennits and licenses pursuant to Section 104(b) of the Act.
Duke also alleges that until the Commission makes a finding, pursuant to Section 102, that a particular type of utilization or production facility has been sufficiently developed to be of practical value for industrial
p 3-or coassercial purposes, the Ccasaission can only issue construc-tion pemits and licenses pursuant to Section 10h(b).
Duke notes that the Commission has not made such a finding, though requested S e Con-to do so by the National Coal Policy Conference, et al.
mission's orders are matters of public record; briefly the Constis-sion ruled that adequate data are not yet available to permit the finding to be made.
Se Regulatory Staff of the Constission presented a similar answer to the motion.
Be contentions made in reference to the proper filing by Duke of its applications and amendments concern the following portion of Section 10k(b) of the Act:
"b.
Se Commission is authorized to issue licenses to persons applying therefor for utilization and production facilities involved in the conduct of research and development activities leading to a demonstration of the practical value of such facili-ties for industrial or commercial purposes...."
Much of the discussion respecting the appropriateness of a Sec-tion 10k(b) proceeding relates to the adequacy of basis for a finding of practical value of the proposed Duke facility. At the outset, however, a determination of the applicability of the quoted portion of the Act requires only that there he proposed certain utilization or production facilities involved in the conduct of research and l
m w
y%.,
__., + -. - -
,]
-h-and development activities. Bcth the Act and the Rules of the Commis-sion define research and developent as follows:
"Me term 'research and developent' means (1) theoretical analysis, exploration, or experimentation; or (2) the extension of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipent, materials, and processes."
Mis definition is sufficiently broad that in our opinion it enecapasses as "developent" a demonstration that vill provide a basis for commercial evaluation.
Bis developent must be viewed within the scope of all pressurized vater reactors of the type pro-posed by Duke. For instance, the Indian Point No. 2 (Consolidated Edison Company) reactor, and to a lesser degree the San Onofre (Southern California Edison Company), the Ginna (Rochester Gas and Electric C
.tation) and the Connecticut Yankee (Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company) reactors vill provide important operating experi-ence prior to the projected schedule for operation of Duke's Oconee Units 1 and 2, but not soon enough to influence major ccmponents.
Similarly, the performance of Unit 1 can have only limited influence on the initial features of Unit 2.
Bus we believe that Units 1 and 2 do validly fall within the demonstration definition.
In addition, there are associated with the Luke reactors the specific research and developent items characteristic of the cases which have been con-sidered to date by the Consnission. Rese include a proposed once-through stesa generstor test, the control rod drive line test, self-I 1
~
f) i 5_
powered detector tests, thermal and hydraulic programs, which latter includes the reactor vessel flow distribution and pressure drop tests, and the fuel assembly ileat transfer and fluid flow test.
Bis Duke program vill be evaluated not only in reference to its own facilities but measured also by the experience from other reactors.
In total, we believe that Duke has proposed the research and develop-ment program required by the Act for its Ocenee Units 1 and 2.
- Bus, j
the motion by the intervenor cities and tevna respecting Oconee Units j
1 and 2 is denied.
De projected time schedule for Duke's Oconee Unit 3 is such that adequate research and develognent not only by Duke, but also by the operators of other pressurized water reactors may well be completed in sufficient depth so that no specific pregrams need be u9.:r'-ken by Duke for this third unit. Se reasca should be clear chat the sans i
experiments need not be repeated. Unf,7r the present record, it is not evident that Duke vill, even under a changing technobgy, construct the Oconee Unit 3 in any substantisily different design :han that which its experience both in design and operation of its Units 1 and 2 indi-cates is prudent and feasible.
It is concluded, therefcre, that a i
decision respecting Oconee Unit 3 must be deferred unti.. further data are available.
Se inquiry into the scope of the research and detelegnent program is directed by the issue specified by the Cosmissien, consistent with i
I t
L I
s p.-
.I 6-prior cases under Section 10h(b) proceedings, in the Notice of Hearf ng as follows:
"Whether... Safety features or components, if any, which require research and developent have been described by the applicant and the applicant has identified, and there vill be ccnducted, a research and developnent program reasonably designed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or components...."
In order to resolve that issue, the inquiry to be made of the research and developnent program must be considered not only in refer-ence to safety questions, but must be considered also in reference to the question of jurisdiction of a regulatory agency to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Se data developed in a record cannot be cate-gorized as to significance.
'Ihese deteminations by the Board are submitted with its views to the Ccamission and the parties by this Order, and in accordance with Section 2 730(f) of the Rules of Practice, the Board refers these mlings to the Ccmissien for review.
Be time of submission of this =atter to the Ccamissien is thus the same as if a question vere certified to the Commission for decision and guidance to the Board and to the parties.
CS EIT AND LICENSING B0 Ahte hn H.
uck
~~)
/ -
/
Issued:
H
. Rp; ton l
August 28, 1967 l
Gemantown, Maryland t
Samuel W. Jensch, Cha1 @
l 1
e-
=- -..
.#-.---=-%
,....,,,.