ML19329D708
| ML19329D708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1968 |
| From: | Hadlock G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329D707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003160325 | |
| Download: ML19329D708 (3) | |
Text
- v -
o-6.\\
l O
?
5 r/
\\
'fN['
- t. ~.. o ;,.3 f 7 o
g pt h\\
es UNITED STATES OF AMZRICA
/-
- 7 O C D ',g'f Hi ATOMIC ENERGY CCOIISSION g
t In the' Matter of
)
jj,g gf
[
d
~
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-3' 2 0
(Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear
~C ~
l Cenerating Plant)
)
/
y f
SU:0:ARY OF ERIEF OF THE FEGUIATORY STAFF Il#..--
i hb The attached brief of the regulat ry staff is directed to the exceptions filed by the intervenors, the City of Gainesville, unL Florida, and the Gainesville Utilities Depart = cat ("Cainesville")
to the Initial Decision of the atomic safety and licensing board issued September 24, 1968, Cainesville claims tha't the board erred in denying its motion to enlarge the issues to consider evidence of the " practical value" of the Crystal River facility and evidence concerning antitrust r.atters. Gainesville alco maintains that the board erred in concluding that the Crystal River
~
plant is a utilization facility involved in the conduct of research
- r and develop =enti activities leading to a de=ons'tration of practical value and therefore licensable pursuant to $ 104 b. of the Act and in failing to condition the construction peimit with respect to antitrust considerations and to assure compatibility with 5 103, The Co:=ission's Memorandem and Order in the Philadelohia Electric case in which the Co= mission held that a finding of
~
, practical value can only be made within the context of a rule 4
a,. /i -
~.
.p e
foo% OMS
~
1
I
_c.
2-
\\
makind proceeding is dispositive of Gainesville's contention that the board erred in denying its motion to enlarge the issues to consider evidence of the practical value of the Crystal River
. facility. As pointed out in that decision, the finding of practical value under 5 102 is a non-delegabic function of the Coc=ission and is to be made as to a " type" of utilization facility and not as to a specific proposed facility. In any event, as the Commission stated in the Duke case, the applicant's decision to relaf'dn a at
- aucIcar' facility rather than a fossil fueled plant to fulfill its future needs for generating capacity is not, as Gainesville suggests, a sufficient basis for a finding of practical value.
5 The Commission's decisions in Duke, Vermont Yankee and Philadelohia Elcetric are also. dispositive to Gainesville's contention that the Cryst'al Liver facility is not properly licensabic under $ 104 b. of 1
the Act. As the Commission pointed out in the ' Duke case, " development",
as used in $ 104 b., includes a demonstration that will provide a basis for co=mercial evaluation and, until there has been such a
~
demonstration of practical value, large scale utilization facilities which will contribute to.the basis for a reliab'a esti= ate of.'
k economic competitiveness are involved in the conduct of activities encompassed in $ 104 b.
~
S e
e
. t.
.Moreover, a number of deGign features are incorporated in the Crystal River facility which require research and development to complete the design. Of particular significance is the research-and development program related to the effectiveness of the con-
~
tainaent sprays to absorb radioactive iodine.
Thus, the Crystal River facility is clearly licensable under i 104 b'. of the Act because its construction and operation will sn st contribute economic data useful in the' demonstration of practical 4
value and because the applicant is engaged in research and develop-ment activities with respect to the proposed facility.
Gainesville's contention _that the Commission should conditien the construction permit with respect to antitrust matters was disposed of by the Co= mission in the Vermont Yankee case. In t{.at case the Commission held that in a proceeding for the issuance of a license under 5 104 b. aof the Act, the Cc missie ~. lacks authority to deny or condition a pensit or license on the basis that it would tend to create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the anti-trust laws.
i Nor should the construction permit be conditioned to assure cocpability with a,$ 103 license, as suggested by Gainesville.
The Commission has determined that the terms of license applicable to a facility engaged in the conduct of research and development e
a l
e m
e 0-o S
s,
o
O m
, s activities leading to the demonstration of practical value are compatible with the regulations and' tercs of license which will apply in the event that a Class 103 license were later to be issued for tha t type of, facility. Section 50.24 of the Commission's regulations provides that the making of a ' finding of *prac'tical value pursuant to section 102 of the act will not be regarded by the Commission as grounds for requiring conversion of any Class 104 license pr.or to the date of e'xpiration contained in the so t license or conversion of any construction perbit, issued under section 104 of the act, prior to the date designated in the
~
permit for expira tion of the license. However, 'thfe Co= mission has stated t' hat at such time as it makes a finding of practical ~
value, it will consider, in a rule making proceeding, whether to change its present regulations respecting conversion.
I, In our view, the Exceptions' and Request for Relief filed by Gainesville should be denied.
4
- f. _
Respectfully submitted, J.4 <<.fi/ p
/
l s
~
f.
=
Gerald F. Had2ack Counsel
.4EC Regulatory Staff; Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of October,1968 e..
e n
=e-
.e
,-e--
.~
s.
'