ML19312C561
| ML19312C561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1967 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912160124 | |
| Download: ML19312C561 (7) | |
Text
_
p y_ c 1 f() k5-lt lY s,.
UNITED STATES ~OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman Wilfrid E. Johnson James T. Ramey Gerald F. Tape
))I In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY l'
I DOCKET NOS. 50-269
/l (Oconee Nuclear Station, l
50-270 Units 1, 2 and 3) 50-2S7 0
J MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On August 10, 1967, eleven cities and towns in North Curolina 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 Oconec 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 Practice, the board referred these rulings to the Commission for review.
The board's order summarizes the principal allegations l
of the motion and the principal assertions of the applicant 7 912160 /Sy g
q
. and the staff in opposition to the motion.
The issue may be stated essentially es 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 Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 under this section?
The Commission is satisfied th'at the documents filed by the parties in the proceeding before the board adeque.tely 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
m
. 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 ccmmercial purposes.
The Commission has recently considered and rej ected on two
]
o
_4 occasions in rule making proceedings the question of whether such a finding should be made with respect to some type or types of light water, nuclear power 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 making 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 o
regarding a finding of practical value:
. It is entirely appropriate for manufacturers and utilities to base their economic estimates on forecasts rather than to await 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 Petitior. for
~
Rule Making, 31 F.R. 16732 (December 30, 1966).
j J
=
. 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 vill 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.
W. B. McCool Secretary
_. ~. _ _ _ _.. _ ___.
y r-w
=-c
Y
(\\
.m
< s j
}
Y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC E!ERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-269 DUKE PCWER COMPAIiY
)
50-270 (Oconee Nuclear Station )
50-287 Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of a !C40RANDUM AND ORDER issued by the Commission on September 8,1967 have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class or air mail, thic eighth day of September,1967:
Samuel W. Jensch, Esq., Chairman Mr. Willic.m S. Lee Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Vice President, Engineering U. S. Atomic Energy Co= mission Duke Power Company Washington, D. C.
20545 General Office Charlotte, North Carolina 26201 Dr. John Henry Buck Vice President & General Manager Honorable Robert McNair Instruments Division Governor, State of South Carolina State House The Budd Company Box 245 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 19560 Harry M. Lightsey, Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorney General i
Dr. Hugh C. Paxton l
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory State of South Carolina l
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 1213 Lady Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Dr. Clarke Willia =s Brookhaven National Laboratory Dr. E. Kenneth Aycock Upton, L. I., New York 11973 5 tate Health Officer State Board of Health Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
J. Marion Sims Building Robert E. Turtz, Esq.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Regulatory Staff U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Mr. W. T. Linton Washington, D. C.
20545 Executive Director of Pollution Control Authority i
William H. Grigg, Esq.
State Board of Health Assistant General Counsel Columbia, South Carclina 29201 i
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Mr. Willic:a F. Fonder Charlotte, North Carolina 26201 Commissioner Department of Labor 1416 Senate Street Roy B. Snapp, Esq.
1725 K Street, N. W.
P. O. Box 1137 Suite 5121 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Washin6 ton, D. C.
20006
..~
r,.,
,-,--------e
... - _ -... _ = - - -
a.
d e
2-Jack R. IIarria, Ecq.
Mr. Henry C. Schult:c, Director Suite 207 - Stimpson-Wagner Building 26677 Development Reccarch Center Statesville, Iiorth Carolina State Development Board P. O. Box 927 J. O. Tally, Jr., Esq.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201 P. O. Drawer 1660 28302 Fayecteville, North Carolina Honorable Daniel K. Moore l
Governor, State of North Carolina Carl Horn, Jr., Ecq.
State Capitol 422 South Church Street Raleigh, !! orth Carolina 27601 Charlotte, North Carolina 28200 Spencer W. Reeder, Esq.
Spencer Building St. Michaels, Maryland 21663 j
i
^
orrice of tne Secretary j
(
l i
f l
l i
i S. W. Jensch cc: T. F. Engelhardt A. A. Wells H. Steele
% H. I. Smith i
e 9
+m e-
-w-w
- ~
-mea 4
---y, m-e w
a w.,s-w
., -~ ~
w