ML19317G436
| ML19317G436 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1970 |
| From: | Hobbs F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003130883 | |
| Download: ML19317G436 (10) | |
Text
_
=. my
.. m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA pp - f A'[0MIC ENERGY COMMISSION
] 'b;;,.
7 COMMISSIONERS:
l)j.
Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman James T. Ramey Wilfrid E. Johnson Theos J. Thompson
)
IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
FII)RIDA POWER CORR) RATION
)
DOCKET NO. 50-302 (Crystal River Unit 3
)
Nuclear Generating Plant)
)
)
)
DECISION This matter comes before us upon exceptions which have been filed to an initial decision cf an atomic safety and licenairq; board authorizing the issuance of a provisional construction permit under Section 104b.
of the Atomic Energy Act to the Florida Power Corporation (the applicant) to build a pressurized water reactor at the applicant's site on the Gulf of Mexico, seven and one-half miles north of the Town of Crystal River, Florida.
Exceptions to the initial decision have been filed by the City of Cainesville, Florida, and the Gainesville Utilities Department (collec-tively, "Gainesville"), which were granted intervention in the proceeding to contest the licensability of the Crystal River facility under Section 104 b. of the Act. The Gainesville exceptions contend that the board Rec'd Gi (d. C! ?N.
Oate
?
UN'.___..__
[
8008130 773 rr
3
. erred: in denying Gainesville's motion to broaden the hearing issues to consider the question of the " practical value" of the Crystal River facility "within the meaning of Section 102 of the Act" and to consider certain antitrust contentions of Cainesville; in coacluding that t.ce proposed facility is licensable under Section 104 b.; and in failing to condition the construction permit to afford Gainesville the right to participate in the project "on non-discriminatory terms and termination j
of any other violations cf antitrust policy". The applicant and the 1/
regulatory staff oppose Gainesville's exceptions.
The staff and the applicant have also filed exceptions to the initial decision. These exceptions are directed to the board's recommendation that the construction permit be conditioned to require a further hearing, 1
l 1/.
Gainesville included in its exceptions certain information on f
the first months of operation of the Connecticut Yankee reactor.
Gainesville contends that the completion and operation of Connecticut Yankee subsequent to the Commission's second rule j
making determination on " practical value", together with "the l
facts which accompany this [ Crystal River] application", warrant a holding that the Crystal River facility cannot be licensed under Section 104 b.
The staff and the applicant have moved that the Commission strike from the exceptions the data concerning the operating experience of Connecticut Yankee on the grounds that:
l the data are immaterial and irrelevant to any issue properly before the board and are belated attempts to include that material in the record of the proceeding; and that there are very substantial diff-erences in the design of the Connecticut Yankee and Crystal River facilities. Gainesville has answered the motions to strike with additional data on the operation of Connecticut Yankee, in the light of which it repeats its request that the Commission hold a further hearing in this proceeding on the " practical value" of the Crystal River facility. The staff and applicant have filed responses opposing the latter motion.
4
4 3
at or before the operating license stage, on the data to be devaloped concerning measures for the cont.rol of iodine concentrations, and to the board's qualification of certain of its findings in light of tha foregoing. They submit that the uncontroverted e.vidence in the record is adequate to support the issuance of an unconditioned provisional construction permit pursuant to 10 CFR I 50.35; that the initial decision discloses no reasonable basis for the recommended condition; and that the Connaission's established procedures are adequate to carry out the apparent intent of the board's reconsnendation without imposition cf a licensing condition in the construction permit. The Gainesville excep-tions do not address themselves to this aspect of the initial dacision; nor do they in any way question the prospective safe operation of the facility.
j The Crystal River reactor is a two loop pressurizad water ratctor with an initial power rating of 2452 megawatts (thermal) and an ultimate expected power capability of 2544 megawatts (thermal). The nuciaar steam supply system for the facility is similar in design to that of the Duke Power Company's Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 and the Metropolitan Edison Ccapany's Three Mile Island Station Unit No.1, which unita were previously suthor-ised for construction by the Commission. As with cther facilities licensed by the Commission, the Crystal River reactor incorporates in its daaign
. numerous safety systems and features for the prevention of accidents and for. the protection of plant employees and the public. These are daalt with in some detail in the reccrd of the proceeding and are generally described.in the initial decision.
l
_ ~
. j i
Based on their respective reviews of the application, the regulatory staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards concluded that there is reasonable assurance the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the Crystal River site without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. In its initial decision, the board reached the same conclusion but also recommended that we direct a later hearing on information to be developed respecting control of iodine concentrations.
We turn now to the appeals which have been taken by the parties to this proceeding and examine first the exceptions filed by Gainesville.
I.
Gainesville's Exceptions The substance of the contentions underlying the Gainesville appeal have been outlined earlier in this Decision.
Gainesville, in essence, disputes the licensability of the Crystal River facility under Section 104 b. and disagrees with the board's disclainer of authority to con-sider as licensing factors the anti-competitive allegations made by Gainesville.
Our holdings on these jurisdictional questions in prior proceed-ings, and the reasons given for those holdings, mark the response required 2/
here to Gainesville's contentions.
The Crystal River facility is 2/
See, -in this regard, our ' decisions in Matter of Duke Power Cemosny, Decision of January 3, 1968 (Docket Nos.- 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287);
Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corcoration, Memorandum and Order of April 8,1968 - (Docket No. 50-271); and Matter of Philadelchie Electric Company, Decision of June 5,1968 (Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278).
l l
l
{
i
~
. plainly licensable under Section 104 b. as we have construed that section; and the board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider antitrust matters in this proceeding was manifestly correct.
We spoke again to these jurisdictional matters in today's decisions in the Boston Edison and Maine Yankee proceedings, where like contentions were raised by contesting municipal utilities. The exposition of our position in the Boston Edison decision (pp. 3-10
) applies equally 11 here and its reasoning :ompels denial of the Gainesville exceptions.
It warrants repeating for Gainesville, however, as we did for the municipal appellants in today's Maine Yankee decision, our concluding remarks in Boston Edison. We noted, in Boston Edison, the applicant's need to return to the Commission for authority to operate the facility being constructed, and then stated:
3/
It might be noted in this regard that we find nothing in "the
~
facts which accompanied" the Crystal River application (the appli-cant's selection of a nuclear plant for its system and its reliance thereon to meet electricity demands) or in the initial operating experience of Connecticut Yankae (January through September 1968) which overrides the basic holdings in our Duke, Vermont Yankee and Philadelphia Electric decisions and in our Boston Edison decision of this date. As to Gainesville's request that resolution of the licensability question be reserved pending judicial decision on our licensing actiens in the Duka and Vermont Yankee proceedings, we would note here (as we did in our Maine Yankee decision in addressing a similar request) that the ( ourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmec our jurisdictional determinations in these cases.
(Cities of Statesville. etc. et al. v. Atemic EnerRY Commission, et alz, (
F. 2d
, S? f p op. Nos. 21,706 and 21,844, December 5, 1969).
}
w "In view thereof, and of the opportunity for hearing which our licensing procedures provida, the Massachusetts Municipals will be entitled at the operating license stage to seek participation as parties to the proceeding and to raise such issues as will then be appropriate. Of course, if the present licensing provisions of the Act should be amended prior to that time... further licensing would be carried out in accordance with the Act as amended."
These remarks, of course, have application as regards the instant proceed-ing and the appellants now before us.
Also applicable to Gainesville is our invitation for participation and assistance in the Section 102 i
rule making proceedings which were the subject of the Commission's kl
" practical value" public announcement of July 22, 1969.
II.
Exceptions by Staff and Applicant The exceptions filed by the regulatory st&ff and the applicant are all directed to the board's recommendation that the provisional construc-tion permit be conditioned to require a further hearing on the question of iodine removal at or before the operating license stage and to the qualified findings made by the board in light thereof. Our review of the record leads us to agree with the staff and the applicant that the evidence in the proceeding supports the issuance of an unconditioned provisonal construction permit pursuant to 10 CFR $ 50.35; and that our normal licensing procedures are adequate to carry out the apparent intent of f/
In a public announcement issued on July 22, 1969, we stated that, absent legislation revising the present " practical value" previsions of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission intends to initiate rule making reconsideration of the " practical value" question by June 30, 1970.- The announcement stated that this course was based on the Comunission's " expectation that sufficient information as to the cost of construction and operation of certain types of larger sized light _ water reactors will then be available to provide a sound basis, with reasonable extrapolation, for c determination as to whether such types of reactors are sufficiently developed to be of practical value within the meaning of Section 102".
m
. the board's recomumendation without the imposition of a condition in the eonstruction parait.
The containment spray system which will be incorporated in the Crystal River facility is designed to limit containment pressures to specified values and.to_ reduce the level of fission products in the con-tainment building atmosphere, following what the board characterized to be the "unlikely event" of a hypothetical loss-of-coolant accident. To reduce the amount of radioactive iodine available for leakage from the 1
containment, the applicant proposes to inject an iodine fixing additive 1
into the containment spray water. The additive proposed is an alkaline j
buffered solution of sodium thiosulfate. The record contains a descrip-tion of the proposed containment spray system and the criteria for its design as well as a deveription of the research and development program proposed by the applicant to establish the effsetiveness of alkaline sodium thicaulfate-as an iodine absorber and the stability and ccmpat-ibility of the sclution under accident conditions.
The propossa research and development work has been reviewed by the i
stsff which concludsd that the applicant's program, in conjunction with studies under way at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, should establish that the reductica factors necessary to limit iodine concentrations at the site bcundary to Part 100 guidelines can be achieved or exceeded. The record also irdicates that, in the event research and development results do not establish that the spray system is acceptable for iodine remeval,
- alternative meine can be empicyed. Charcoal filters and reduction of the containment leak rate are among the alternatives put forward by the appli-cant.
r.
-w
9 The record further ref1 sets that the use of containment sprays for the removal of radioactive iodine has been a design feature of other facilities previously approved for construction. These include, the Point Beach Units 1 and 2 cf the Wisconsin Electric Power Company and the Wisconsin-Michigan Power Company, and the Metropolitsn Edison Company's Three Mile Island Unit 1.
The description of the chemical spray system and the proposed research and development program thereon contained in the application for the Three Mile Island unit, which facility employs a containment spray identical to the one proposed by the applicant here, was incorporated by reference in the record of this proceeding.
The information in the record of this proceeding with respect to the applicant's proposed iodine removal system, the relate? research and developonnt work underway and planned, and the alternative safeguards which are available, constitute a compcaite record which we dets satisfac-tory at this conatruction parmit staga.
Our regulations (10 CFR 5 50.35(a)) do not require that all design details of a facility be supplied at the construction parmit stage, nor that every safety queatien must hava teen definitively resolved at that 5/
stage.
In the subjact connection, cne of the findings requirad by Section 30.35(a) is that: " safety features er ccmponents, if any, whi:h require research and develepment have been described by tha applicant and 1/
See our observations in this regard in NMtter of Jersey Central Power and Light Cempany (3 AEC 28), May 6,1965, and Mattsr of Florida Pcwer & Light Company, Memorsndum and Order of August 4, 1967, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251.
I
~ '
~
m
.,, the applicant has identified, and there will be conducted, a research and development program reaeonably designed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or components". We note that the board made an affirmative finding as to the above, althcugh it qualified two of the other Section 50.35(a) findings in the manner referred to earlier.
The Commission is fully appreciative of the board's concern that the application, as finally processed, treat more definitively with the subject iodine control question. However, as we view the record, the technical and design matters still to be resolved, and which were of concern to the board, can be dealt with within the framework of our Ll regular procedures for licensing power reactors.
If we should determina at the operating license stage (when design details and tha 1/
Under the licansing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and the Ccamission's regulations, all power reactor construction permits are subject to the limitation that a license authorizing operation of the facility will not be issued until the applicant has submitted, by amendment to its application, the complete final safety analysis report and the Connission has found (follow-ing review by the regulatory staff and by the Adviscry Committaa on Reactor Safeguards) that the final design provides reasonable assurance that the health and safaty of the public will not be endangered by operation of the facility in accordance with the license and the Commission's regulations (10 CFR 5 50.35(c)).
Prior to issuing an operating license. Mae Commission must givs 30 days notice, published in the Fadt al Registar, of its intant to do so and of the opportunity to reiuest a hearing by any person whose interest may be affected 'bereby.
(10 CFR 5 50.58(b)).
J
m
- l-o-results of supporting research and development work will be available) that a hearing is desirable, or if any member of the public vF se.
interest might be affected requests a hearire, euch a hearing can then be directed.
In short, given the present record and our existing procedures, we see neither a basis nor a need for directing at this time that a future hearing be held at any event.
It is therefore CRDERED that:
(1) The exceptions filed by Gainesville are denied; and (2) The exceptions filed by the regulatory staff and the applicant are granted.
Commissioner Larson did not participate in this decision.
By the Commission.
l k
F. T. Hobbs Acting Secretary Dated: March 20, 1970 0