ML19340A503

Motion to Strike Portions of City of Gainesvilles Exceptions to Prehearing Order & Initial Decision

ML19340A503
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	10/25/1968
From:	Brandimore S, Everts H FLORIDA POWER CORP.
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8004090565
Download: ML19340A503 (4)

Text

r

,,-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-ATOMIC ENERGY C0!E11SSION.

In the t!atter of:

')

)

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION

)

-Docket No. 50-302

"~'

-)

(Crystal' River. Unit 3.

)

Nuclear Generating Plant)

)

f. a MOTION OF APPLICANT TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF INTERVENOR CAINESVILLE'S EXCEPTIONS TO PREHEARING ORDER AND INITIAL DECISION TO: THE UNITED STATES AT0511C ENERGY C01011SSION Florida Power Corporation, Applicant in the above-styled matter, by and through its undersigned attorneys, files this Motion to Strike Por-tions of Intervenor Gainesville's Exceptions to the Prehearing Order and

[

~

Initial Decision, pursuant to Section 2.730(a) of the Commission's " Rules of Practich",10 CFR Part 2.

The Applicant respectfully moves the Commission to strike from Gainesville's Except! ions to the Prehearing Order and the Initial Decision the following-language, including Appendix A, pages 4 and 5 of its Excep-tions:

"... As - shown in Appendix A*, the Connecticut Yankee plant, - even in its first six months of operation has proved to be' competitive with respect to other energy -

supplies purchased by the New England Power Company.

Nearly 200 millien hilowatt-hours were provided at a cost of 6.87 mills,' contrasted with cncrgy supplied

~

by Boston Edison andLConsolidated Edison at unit costs of-8.33 mills and 8.03 mills per kilowatt-hour respec-tively. Of equal' significance is the lower cost shown in comparison with the performance of the Yankee' (Rowe)

Atomic, ~a-predecessor in.the history of demonstration units approved under.104(b) licenses.

"These demonstrhble results are not lost on the 3 ; Data.--are from Ucw England Power Company's Financial-Statement and Opera-

~~

-ting? Report for Month' and Period Ended June 30,1968, page 5.5.

This was

~

' obtained in deposition proceedings held beginning August 13,.1968, P_nuer Plannine Cormittes i. New Enginnd Power Co.,. FTC E-7388.

1

80.04LO 9 0 m

=

~

t.

'm

- :=,

electric utility industry which is ~ currently committed to 72,404,000 1 September 1968) or approxikw of nuclear capacity (100 units a installed capacity'oficonventional units.mately 25% of the pre'sen s

t L-230, October. 10, 1968)..... "

(AEC release,

-e Grounds L1,. The evidentiary hearing.vas concluded on July

h;.

-::s i-b 17, 1968, and all parties, including Gainesville, stated that they had no more evidence to present (Transcript, Page 507).

Gainesville's attempt to inject into the record of' the present proceeding unsworn doc Release L-230, October uments (Exhibit' A and AEC

.w 10,.1968) pertaining to comparative electric gener-ating costs per kilowatt-hour in the New England area and th e current volume'of generation being committed -to nuclear power amo unts to a bald l

attempt to improperly reopen the evidentiary hearing and se ses no useful aW purpose other.than to delay, hinder and harass the Appli cant.

2.

The above-quoted statements, together with Appendix A at-tached to its Exceptions and AEC Release

, L-230, October 10, 1968, referred to by Gainesville, are immaterial and irrelevant t o any issue properly be-fore the Board at the evidentiary hearing and would h

~

ave been-excluded had Gainesville att capted to inject such matter into the

' hearing.

record at the public

(

3 Gainesville had two full days (July 16 and 17 1968) while the hearing was in progress, to fully develop its i

~ cuidence lt' case by offering any wished, subject to objection by other parties and a ruli by the Bo'ard. - Yet;it an'nounced -it -had nothing furthe ng r to offer. Gainos-ville has hid itszday in Court and, now that this phase of th

'baen concluded e contest has

, it -b' elatedly attempts 'to inject into the record matter

=:

which would have. bcen irrelevant and immaterial if ti a

mely presented. - The pp1'icant would be highly prejudiced by the admission into th e record of r

J

[

^

.2-i-

L_

~

l

} }g

~

.the foregoing statements and references..to comparative generating costs in New England. It has been evident since Gainesville was permitted to-

E

' intervene in this proceeding thatlits primary objective has been to convert

.the proceeding into one for determining whether or not this particular'

-]

reactor (Crystal River Un' t No. 3) has any _" practical value" as defined by i

Gainesville and every other-similarly situated municipal intervencr in 1

recent Section 104b L. licensing proceedings. Even if " practical value" as

~ defined by Gainesville, were a. proper matter in thi' proceeding, the in-W T s

clusion in the record-of the above-quoted' statements and material would

.be improper at this time. Applicant would be denied the right of cross-

=

examination.or offering rebuttal evidence to point out'the many differences l..

existing between New England and Florida when comparing generating costs-

~

with different types and sizes of generating units.

5 4.

The reasons why or the business judgment exercised by Ap-plicant's Managemen.t in choosing to build a nuclear facility, as opposed to a conventional generating plant, are. immaterial and irrelevant.

Such information has no:bcaring upon any issue over which the Commission has jurisdiction in a 104b licensing proceeding.

The Commission has repeatedly stated that the mere fact that utility companies and reactor manufacturers are willing to accept the busines's risks involved in constructing and opera-ting.a nuclear. reactor does not amount to " practical value" within the mean-ing of Section-102 :of, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

(Duke

~

Proceedings -rDockets.Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-5287.) The soundness of E the Commission's interpretation of'" practical value" is amply illustrated l

.by the unforeseen.dolays ' and increased costs of Jersey Central. Power and l.

1 Light :Co. and its > contractor in the construction of: the Oyster Creek reactor.

TherCommission can take judicial notice of the experience at Oyster Creek

~

I

+

q

--3 -'

m 4,

I

+

.c

=...e,

cad ethsr sicilcr situntions wlsrsin largs ceslo~rsectors have failed to

~ ""

~

' demonstrate. the practical value.all' concerned anticipated. -

,g

~

1 WHEREFORE,' Applicant respectfully prays that - this' Honorable Com-p;......

' mission grant'its Motion and strike 'from Intervenor's Exceptions the 'above-E nh

. =... =.,

-r

"

quoted-scatements and material.-

:

O'. 'i i

. Dated: October 25, 1968 Respectfully' submitted,.

[

t y=

...T'.

r; :.;

f0f Counsel':

/s/ -Harry A. Evertz, III-4-

' S. A. BRANDIMORE -

HARRY A. EVERTZ, III N-General Counsel Florida Power Building 4

1 Florida Power Corporation 101 - 5th Street South Florida Power. Building <

P. O. Box 14042

~ n?

'101 '- 5th Street' South St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 l=

.P. 0.' Box 14042

..]l S t. Petersburg, Florida 33733 ROY B. SNAPP 1725 "K" Street N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006--

Counsel for Florida Power Corporation

+

4 J

I.

'^l 3

9 4

5 m

i t

a 1.5 p

.:4 -

._ N ;.

e y

r.

b~

,e

...,,