ML19329D706
| ML19329D706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1968 |
| From: | Hadlock G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329D707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003160324 | |
| Download: ML19329D706 (6) | |
Text
_g E00. & uill, EAc. bO-BOA
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l)...} ' *'
,.,, s ATWIC ENERGY Cat 4 MISSION
~
.In the Matter of
)
//Y-f[
)
/
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
)
)
Docket No. 50-302 (Crystal River Unit 3
)
Nuclear Generating Plant)
)
O\\
W REGUIATORY STAFF 'S RESPONSE TO FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION'S MOTION TO 8
00CIETID 9
STRIKE AND TO GAINESVILLE 'S D
MOTION FCR HEARING N01/. 'l 1933 L-JO C::::s :t n y,.g.j M;; it:vt:ys fj I
s b
Background
3 111 The Initial Decision of the atomic safety and licensing board (board), issued September 24, 1968, authori::ed the issuance of a construction permit to Florida Power Corporation-(applicant) to construct a nuclear reactor, designated Crystal River Unit 3, at its site near Crystal River, Florida. On October 14, 1968, the City of Gainesville, Florida, and Gainesville Utilities Depart =ent (collectively referred to as "Gainesville") filed exceptions to 4
the Initial Decision directed, among other things, to the board's denial of its Motion to Broaden Issues to include the question of whether the Crystal River facility has " practical value". In b
support of its contention that the board erred in denying its
. motion, Gainesville referred to infor=ation filed with the Federal Power Co::: mission concerning the cost of electric energy frc'= the 4
80 0316tY Sh h e
\\
~
, Connecticut Yankee facility during its first few months of operation and to an AEC release cencerning the status of nuclear power plants at the end of September 196S, neither of which had been intrcduced into the record in this proceeding.
On October 25,196S, the applicant filed a Motion to strike the docu=ents referred to by Gainesville and the discussion of these documents set forth in Gainesville's exeeptions on the gro'und
~
that the statements and documents are immaterial and irrelevant to any issue properly before the board'and are belate,d attempts to include this caterial in the record of this proceeding.
On October 30, 1968, Gainesville filed an " Answer" to the applicant's motion to strike and a Motion for Hearing. Gainesville asserts that the " purpose of bringing to the Cc= mission's attention the latest data concerning the practical value of the Connecticut Yankee Project...was to... help it determine whether the Board should 2'
have review and a hearing held as to whether...[the Crystal River]
plant has prac tical value...." (Gainesville's Answer to Motion to S trike, p. ~2.)
In its prayer for relief, Gainesville requests that. '
the Co==ission " grant a hearing on the matter of practical value' in light of the...infor=ation (relating to the operation of the Connecticut Yankee facility]".
(Gainesville's Answer to Motion to d
e
e 3
Strike, p. 6.) In addition, Gainesville seems to request (page 5) that the record be reopened so that the data conce.rning Connecticut Yankee's operating experience can be received in evidence with respect to the " jurisdictional issue", i.e., shether the construction permit for the Crystal River facility can be properly issued pursuant to 5 104 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as anended (Act).
II Argument Gainesville's Motion for Hearing 3
Gainesv111e's request for.a " hearing on the matter of practical value", is yet another attempt to interject the practical value question into this adjudica tory proceeding. The same question is pending before the Co= mission in Gainesville's exception challenging the board's denial of its Motion to Broaden Issues to include the practical value question. Each of these efforts by Gainesville ignores the Co= mission's decision in the Philadelphia Electric cc:a in which the Co= mission held that "[t]he finding of practical value is a non-delegable function of the Co= mission shich can properlyL be made by the Co= mission only in a rule making proceeding in which all interested persons would have an opportunity to participate." 1/
1/ Matter of Philadelohia Electric Co., Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Me=orandum and Order (AEC, Dec. 5,1967), p. 3.
i O
+
)
P
+
.s This question cannot p'roperly be considered in this adjudicatory proceeding.. Moreover, as pointed out by the Commission in that case, the finding of practical value is to be made as to a " type" of utilization facility and not as to a specific proposed facility.
Accordingly, Gainesville's request to reopen the record in this case to receive evidence on the question of the " practical value" of the Crystal River facility should be denied.
s Gainesville's request to reopen the record to receive the data concerning the Connecticut Yankee operations,with respect to the " jurisdictional issue" should also be denied. The infor-mation concerning the operation of the Connecticut Yankee facility is not relevant or material to the question of whether the construc-tion permit for the. Crystal River facility can properly be issued pursuant to $ 104 b. of the Act.
The Connecticut Yankee facility is 1
authorized to operate at 1473 megawatts (thermal) 2/ compared to an anticipated initial power level of 2452 megawatts (ther=al) for the
. Crystal River facility. While' both facilities are pressurized, light water reactors, there are very substantial differences in the design of the two facilities. The Connecticut Yankee reactor is a 4
2/ Matter of Connee'ticut Yankee Atomic P' wer Co., 2 AEC 393 at 393 o
(Initial Decision, May 14, 1964) [ hereinafter referred to as Connecticut Yankee].
I G
F g
e e
e 9
4 4
6 w
k k
s
?
four loop plant 3/ whereas the Crystal River facility has only two loops in the primary system.
(Applicant's Su==ary Description of Applica tion, following Tr., p. 264 at 11; PSAR, Vol. I. Section 4, paragraph 4.2.5; Staff Safety Evalua tion, following Tr., p. 275 a t 25.) A particularly important difference is the "once through steam generator" 'which is incorporated in the Crystal River plant.
(Applicant's Su==ary Description of Application, fol towing Tr.,,
- p. 264 at 22; PSAR, Vol. IV. Supp.1, Question 1.4; Staff Safety Evalua tion, following Tr., p. 275 at 11.) This feature, Which is a
not included in the Connecticut Yankee plant, 4/ is the subject of an extensive research and development program.
(Applicant's Su==ary Description of Application, following Tr., p. 264 at 22; PSAR, Vol. IV. Supp.1, Question 1.4; Staff Safety Evaluation, following Tr., p. 275 at 58.) Gainesville has made no showing that the economic da ta relating to Connecticut Yankee operation would,
~
in any way, tend to establish that the Crysta1 River facility is.not properly licensable under $ 104 b.
Further, the r ecord of r.his proceeding contains a=ple evidence that the Crystal niver facility is a utilization facility involved in...e conduct of research and develop =ent activities leading to the de=onstration lof practical value Ohich accordingly, is properly licensable under 5 104 b. of the Act.
3 /, Id. at 397.
~
4/ Connecticut Yankee, supra note 2 at 397.
e e
I I
=
(See Applicant's S = mary Description of Application, following Tr.,
- p. 264 at 22-25; 5taf f Safe ty Evalua t, ion, following Tr., p. 275 at 58-60.) Its construction and operat; 2n will contribute economic data, useful in the demonstration of practical value and the appli-
. cant is engaged in research and development. activities of a technical nature with respect to the proposed facility.
In view of the foregoing, the 'hotion for Hearing" filed bh Gainesville should be denied.
Apolicant's Motion to Strike In our view the applicant's Motion to Strike should be granted.
Gainesville states that the only purpose in referring to the Connecticut Yankee data was to give.the Co= mission " background information" on Which to base its decision as to shether the issues in this case should be broadened to include the " practical value" question. The basic question presented concerns the proper type of proceeding for a determination of " practical value". This legal question has already been resolved by the Co= mission in the Philadelphia Electric case. Factual evidence, such as the economic data concerning the Connecticu'c Yankee facility, could
~
not affect this legal determination.
4 e
[
I
m
..IV Conclusion For' the reasons set forth above, we believe that Gainesville's Motion for Hearing should be denied and the applicant's Motion to Striks should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, t
f G a f/
^e-y i
Gerald F. Hadlock Counsel 3
AEC Regulatory Staff Of Counsel:
Martin G. Maisch Attorney AEC Regulatory Staff E
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 6th day of Nove=ber,1968.
r l
WsEso-3f, 3