ML19308B167
| ML19308B167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1967 |
| From: | Engelhardt T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912130866 | |
| Download: ML19308B167 (6) | |
Text
-
7.--
____ 7
)
.y t 6 '/
g g { f g j'4'g
00"XET t'U!.18'1 yc-t7c s
7:100. a U!!' FAC.
n-
? c _7 p
/
n o..m y ; '..e 3
..-,e,
,g g,
~..
UNIT 2D STATES OF AM2RICA JUL 3,.:.,ua7_ t-- Im_
y
~
d I4 c:::: ct n::m27 ATOMIC EN2RCY CCXXISSION M
4..u:: m::: :::
m:n cy ri;'
d
/
j t x\\
~n :he Ma::c: of
)
W
)
- UXI PCWER COM?ANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-269 50-270
)
50-287 (0:ence Nucic:r S:stion,
)
Uni:s 1, 2 and 3)
)
22.1PCNS2 07 THE AEC R2GULATORY STA??
. v. r.v..a v?..v. S
..a a
v.
- n. T..r.v..Cv..a a
. 0 e..,sC...Sa.-
ACAINST DUKE ?CW2R COM2ANY'S A??LICATION FOR UNCCNDITICNAL LICENS2S of On July 25, 1967 an undated document entitled "?ro:cs:
? icd =on: Electric Cities Against Duka Power Company's Application for Un, conditional Licenses Under the A:omic Energy Act of 1954, i
As A=cnded, for Oconce Nucicar S:ation Units 1, 2 and 3" (protest) was filed with the Co ission on behalf of clavan cities and towns locc:ed in Nor-h Carolina 1/ (protes: ants), all of which purchase The protest powar frc= the Duko ?cwcr Co=pany for distribution.
the protestants and others have been denied the allegos tha:
opportunity to participata in the Duka Powcr Company's Oconee projae:. The protestants con end tha: the issuance of an uncondi:1onal license to the Duke Power Company is not authorized by the A:c=ic Energy Act in that such a license would appear to City of S:stasvilla, City of High ?oint, City of Lexins:on, 1/
City of Monroc, City of Shciby, C.ty of Albo=arlo, Town of
~
Cornelius, Town of Drexel, Town of Grani a Falls, Town of Newton and Town of Lincoln:on.
f-s.
r-
<~; -
..)
2 viols c or tend toward the vioistion of the antitrus: Icus, would
- ppccr to restrain free compo ition in priva c enterprise, and would cad to create or main:cin c situation inconsisten: with tha an:itrust laws. ?rotestants propose that the Co==ission condition :ny license issued to the Duke Power Company to require che Company :o offer an undivided in: crest in Oconec Nuclear S:s: ion, Units 1, 2 and 3, to a non-profit corporation and to c; rec to "whcci the Oconce nuclear en:i:1ccent of the North Carolina ?iedmon: Electric Cities to delivery points to said
=unicipally-owned electric sys:cas." The protes: ants also have requested a public hearing on the protest.
On July 24,1967 :he Co=sission issued a notice of hearing to consider the Duke Power Company's application for provisions 1 construction permits for the Oconec units, which was published in the 7aderal Register on July 27, 1967 (32 7.2. 10996). This notice c: for:h the specific issues which were to be concidered
- the hearing by the Acc=ic Safety and Licensing Socrd (3ocrd) f designs:cd by the Co==ission to conduct the hearing. The notice also provided ths: pe:itions for leave to intervene in the pro-coading or requests to make linited appearances =ust be received by :he Co= mission by Augus: 11, 1967.
The protes: does not state whether the protes: ants seek o in:crvene in the proccading pursuan: to the provisions of 52.714
?
be
--n..
~,.~~
a.
,----ne~
..u,.
.m k
,~)
-~
of the Co=nission's " Rules of ?ractice",10 C7R Part 2.
The c:aff, howcvor, considers tha: the protest was probably incended as a pc:1: ion for leave to intervena pursuan: to 52.714 of the Co==1ssion's " Rules of ?ractica", and elects to deal with the suoscance of the pro:cs: in this response rather than to oppose its considers: ion because of procedural deficiencies.
In a proceeding on an application, such as tha: involved in :his proceeding, for permits to construct nuclear power reac ors of the type specified in Section 104(b) of the Ac,
the Co==ission's regulatory control is concerned with considera-tions-involving the protection of the health and safety of the public agains radiological hazards and assura:.ce of the co==on defense and securi y.
The Cc==ission has no regulatory cu hority under the Act to deny or condition a permit or licensa of the cypc specified in Section 104(b) of the Act because of antitrus:
considerations.=/ The Co=nission is required, of course, pursuan:
to Section 105(b) of the Ac, to report to the Attorney Gcceral any information 1: =ay have wi:h respect to any utili stion of special nuclear material or ato ic energy "which appears to 2/
Sec logislative history of the Act and in particular the following references whici. indicate the basis for not including the language of section 7(c) of the Acc=ic Inergy Act of 1946, which required the Co==issio'n to consider antitrust issues in liccasing =stters, in the 1954 Ac:: Volu=c II, Atomic Incrgy Act of 1954 Legis-la:Lvc History, 1923, 2042, 2132, 2266, 2267, 2350, 2559 ; Volu=c III, A c=ic Incrgy Act of 1954 Legislative History, 3637.
e s
~
~ _ - -. ~
_m
c) m 4
viols:a or tend :owcrds the viola:1on of the specified antitrus:
1:ws or to the restraint of free cc=po ition in privata on:cr-prisc."2/
L*ntil such ti=c as the Co==ission : y make a finding, pursuan: to Section 102 of :ha Act, tha: the type of facili:ias which the Duke ?cuar Co=peny proposes to construct has been suffician:1y devcicpod to bc of pr:c:ical value for industrial or cc==arcial nurposes, co==arcial licenses under Sec: ion 103 of :he Ac: will not be issued for the Duka Power Cc=pany type o f' fccilitics. Scc:1on 105(c) of cha Ac;, which requires (1) the Co==ission to notify the A: orney General of the issuanca of certain licenses, and (2) the Attorney General to advise tha Cen=ission with respect to antitrust i=plications of the issuanca of a licansc, is applicabic only to facilities licensed pursuan:
- s Sac: ion 103 of the Act. /
4 j/
Without prejudica as to whcchcr the allegations and conten-tions in the protests constitute any apparent violction of
- he antitrust laws, the regulatory s:sff intends to trans=i:
a copy of the pro cs: :o the Attorney General.
4,/
- should be noted th:: 10 C?1 550.24 providas tha: the :: king of a finding of prac:ical value "will not be regcrded by tha Co==ission as grounds for requiring:
(a) The conversion to a Class 103 license of any Cicss 104 licensa prior to the da:c of expiration contained in :he license; or (b)
The conversion to a Cicss 103, license of cny construc-tion pc= nit, issued. under acc: ion 104 of the Act, prier to the da:e designated in the pc= nit for expira: ion of the license."
f G
.~.mm.merum.e 4. m w +.
4.
.w
..+%...
b-.
..m~,
e-.
k
Th:: :he Cc==ission's regulatory cu hority in a Section IC4(5) proceeding is confined :o ::::crs of cc--an defenso cud accuri:y and radiological hacith and safety is confir=cd no:
only by a reading of the ter s of the Ac:5/ cnd 1:s legislative history, ' cut by consistent interpretations of the Act by the Co= ission in its regul tions / cnd regulatory adjudications.
6 Sac In the atter o f Jersev Centr:1 ?cuer and Licht Ccmpany, 2 A20 Reports 446, 447 (consideration of thermal effects excluded); In the M:::cr of Niccarc Mohnwh Power Corenrneion, Initial Decision, pp. 11-12, April 1, 1965, 3 AIC Reports (consideration of whe:hcr grant of a construction por=it con-s:i:u:cd support of segregation excluded); In the Matter of Concalid :cd 3dison Cemeanv of Neu verk, Inc., Mc=orandum and C:dar, Novc=ber 24, 1965, 3 AIC Reports (considorctions of
- hcr=n1 oficc:s excluded); In the Mat:cr of Wisconsin-Michiecn
?cuer Cem,cnv, Crder Danying In:crvention, June 20, 1967, 3 AIC Repor:s (consideration of aes:hccic and recreational and Icad use values of lakashora environs excluded despite the fac:
- h : pa:1:icncr resided within close proxi=i:y of :he proposed site.)
i/
Sce: ions 104 cad 189.
i/
10 C72 ?cr:s 2, 20, 50 and 100.
f" 4.
.... ~,.
e..
(,)
o 6-
"ac notice of hearing in this procceding specified certain issucs which the Co=ission directed be considered by the Soc d in this proceeding. The protest does not cddress itscif to cny of :hese issues. In addition the pro:esten:s have not shown sny in:c:cs: which " cy be affec:cd by the proceeding."
7or :he foregoing rc: sons, the protestants, in failing Oc shou th : their in:c cs:s end conten:icns c:e within the juris-
~
diction of the C =ission or clevent :o the issues sc forth for hearing, hava no: =c the Cc=ission's criteria for in:c -
vention. The pro test, considered as a petition for leave to in:c v'ene or otherwise, should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, f*Us,-l4c.:va7 f
r
/-/
'//MMAn 8
Thocas F. Engelhardt Counsel AZC Regulatory S:aff Oc:cd c: 3c hesda, M :yland
- hi 31s: day of July,1967.
i 1
a 4
1 S
h&
-e-mepw m-o e
a-o.
wm-mm m --
s.--m
-me s.ve e-,.-
_ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _