ML19317G442

Response to Util Motion to Strike Portions of Intervenors' Exceptions to Prehearing Order & Initial Decision.Motion Should Be Denied & Hearing Should Be Granted

ML19317G442
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	10/30/1968
From:	Fairman J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Shared Package
ML19317G443	List: ML19317G442 ML19317G444
References
NUDOCS 8003130889
Download: ML19317G442 (6)

Text

________

6

,.p -.

t

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICC j e

' '2 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In th'e Matter of )

. Rep!&-- c --! Fik Cv.

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-302

) p ,t .r.?~. '

(Crystal River Unit 3 ) -

Nuclear Generating Plant) )

GAINESVILLE'S ANSWER TO FLORIDA PO%TR CORPORATION'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS

, OF INTERVENOR GAINESVILLE'S EXCEPTIONS TO PREHEARING ORDER AND INITIAL DECISION; MOTION FOR HEARING Th'e City of Gainesville and Gaines ille Utilities Depart-

~ ment ("Gainesville"), pursuant to Section 2.730(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (10 CFR Part 2), hereby respond to the Applicant's i

motion to strike. (Applicant's Motion dated October 25, 1968.)

1. One issue now before the Atomic Energy Commission

(" Commission") is whether the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Board") erred in failing to enlarge the issues for trial to include y, whether this Crystal River Unit has practical value. (Board Prehearing i

Order, June 26, 1968; Gainesville Exceptions No. '1, October ~14,1968. )

If the project is of such a type then as a matter of law;the application should have been filed for a commercial license under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S. C. 2133).

l J

8003130 N G

. S

2. The purpose of bringing to the Commission's attention the latest data concerning the practical value of the Connecticut Yankee Project (Appendix A of Gainesville's Exceptions) was to give it background information necessary to help it determine whether the Board should have review and a hearing held as to whether this plant has practical value and a license under the terms and conditions of practical value be issued.

' Florida Power Corporations objections have failed to recognize, on this aspect of the case, that there is not involved any question of receiving additional evidence in this proceeding, nor the Commission's duty in having to consider the matter under that concept. -

The hearing never got to practical value. The question before the Commission now is whether they should set the hearing down as to practical value. ,.

3. Moreover, the information contained in Appendix A,? ,

to Gainesville's exceptions,which shows that the New England Power Company is purchasing atomic energy from Connecticut Yankee at a lower

- cost than it is purchasing fossil-fuel energy from Boston Edison and Con-solidated Edison, did'not become available to Gainesville until a month after

' the hearings at Crystal River were closed. The important thing is, that the Commission in its continuing jurisdiction over the matter of practical 4e 4

0

, .l

. 3 value wants to be apprised of the current operating performance of pressurized water reactors. The Securities and Ex' hangec Commission in its findings and opinion granting initial issuance of securities used to finance the Connecticut Yankee project noted: "In contrast to the Mass Yankee plant, which was undertaken as an experimental and develop-mental project, Conn Yankee's plant was conceived as a large commercial sourco of electric power at competitive costs . . . "

(SEC Findings and Opinion, Holding Company Act Release No.14968,

p. 3, dated November 15, 1963.) No doubt this same operating data from the Connecticut Yankee plant is available in .he A E C 's

_1/

' file s . Gainesville is endeavoring to show that the Commission is concerned whether the pcJnt of practical value has been passed.

Accordingly, in order that the Commission can keep abreast of the further developments, we are including inIppendix A attached hereto a copy of a speech presented by Roger J. Coe , Vice President, Yanke'e, Atomic Electric Company in which he discusses the operating experiences of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company and the Connecticut Yankee Atomic 2/

Power Company plants." This was presented at a meeting in Washington L/ Connecticut Yankee Form 5 Reports (Electric Utilities Monthly State-ment of Operating Revenues and Income) filed with the Federal Power Commis sion.

2,/ The Vision of Hindsicht: How Good Have The Forecasts Been? , Briefing Cunference On Nuclear Power, sponsored by the Federal Bar Association and Atomic Industrial Form, Washington, D. C. , September 5-6, 1968.

~

. -s on September 5th and 6th,1968 and as the first sentence points out the AEC's Assistant General Counsel for Licensing and Regulation arranged for this presentation. As the talk indicates Connecticut Yankee power costs have been 6.62 mills per kwh for the initial seven months, which upon adjustment for capacity factor and depreciation are shown as 5.62 mills per kwh in contrast to a prediction of 5. 33 mills per kwh. In four of the seven months of operation plant capacity factor has exceeded the forecast of 80% and obtained a cumulative average of 66% It is significant to note also that the outages experienced,in March and April were due to the turbine generator not the nuclear portion of the system.

5. We have done some further analysis. _Taking the Form 5 reports which Connecticut Yankee has filed with the Federal Power Commission for the months of January through August 1968, we find that the average selling price of the Connecticut Yankee output is ,

_3/ ..

l

6. 68 mills per kilowatt hour. (Mr. Coe's figures only go through 9

July of 1968.). The first eight months data ia sufficient to show the "

l l

commercial competiveness,of these pressurized water nuclear units.  !

Like any new station there is a shakedown period in which various problems i

need to be worked out. Shakedown notwithstanding, a ready cost compari-

~

son can be made with energy purchases by New England Power Company l

3]Eight months operation: Income from sales: $11, 996, 304 l Sales - KWH: 1,795,772,000 l Unit Income: 6. 68 mills /kwh

under a unit sales contract from Boston Edison's New Boston Station.

In 1967 New England Power purchased 571,299,000 bh (under a 4/

contract demand of 100,000 kw) for 6. 5 mills /kwh." This contrasts with the 6. 62 mills /kwh figure supplied by Mr. Coe for actual Connecticut Yankee performance for seven months and the adjusted cost shown in ' Appendix A (Figure 8) of S. 62 mills /kwh.

6. This evidence on Connecticut Yankee was not avail-able at the time of hearing and therefore the Commission should and Gainesville hereby so moves to reopen the hearings to take into testimony the latest available evidence as to the Connecticut Yankee Plant. This would be with relation to the jurisdictionalissue that was actually set for hearing at Crystal River as to whether 'his present application could be considered at all under Section 104(b), which would depe id on whether or not it is a research$nd development project leading to a demonstration of practical value. 6,

7. On this , smatter which is of great national importance, it is vital that this regulatory agency base its determinations on current I'

f Annual Report of New England Power Company, Federal Power Commission Form No.1, pp. 422-423,1967.

i 4

e

4 information and that it be aided in obtaining these facts. The Commission has an affirmative duty to seek out facts of this sort which are essential to the jurisdictional question here involved. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission. 354 ". ~d 608, 620 (2nd Cir.

1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 941.

WHEREFORE, the City of Gainesville and Gainesville U tilities Department pray that the Commission: 1) deny the Applicant's

- motion to strike Appendix A and the designated portions (Applicant's 3

Motion pp.1-2) of Gainesville'e exceptions; and 2) grant a hearing on the matter of practical value in light of the foregoing information.

Respectfully submitted, CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

' - and GAINESVILLE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT By .- km - /2!.Lu,e2%

a es F. Fairman,- Jr.

eir Attorney

//

7 e

October ,30,1968 I'

Law Offices:

George Spiegel Suite 312,' Watergate Office Building 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20037 1

i

+

t