ML19312C630
| ML19312C630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1972 |
| From: | Rutberg J, Vogler B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190837 | |
| Download: ML19312C630 (5) | |
Text
z, UNITED STATES OF AERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C0lHISSION
~
In the Matter of
)
i DUKE POWER C0ffANY Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A
)
50-287A (0conee Uni ts 1, 2 & 3,
)
50-369A, 50-370A McGuirs Units 1 & 2)
)
REPLY OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO NOTICE OF HEARING Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.706 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, the AEC Regulatory Staff (Staff) hereby replies to the Answer to Notice of Hearing filed by Duke Power Company (applicant).
In its Answer the applicant contends the legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (the Act), demonstrates that Congress intended the Cormiission to consider the implications, from the standpoint of t antitrust laws, of the construction and operation of the proposed facilities only and not to assume the responsibilities of the Department of Justice and the courts for the enforcement of the antitrust laws with respect to the applicant's overall activities as a utility.
The Staff does not agree with the applicant's interpretation of the Act and its legislative history.
The Staff maintains that the legislative history of the Act reveals that Congress intended a broader antitrust review than contemplated by the applicant.
However, this issue as well as whether the applicant's activities under the license ir, question will create or maintain a situation that is inconsistent with the antitrust laws will be addressed and resolved at the forthcominghearings on this matter. The primary purpose of the hearing herein is set forth on page 4 of the Notice.
f~~.,
.i912190[
~
A
o
. "The issue to be considered at the hearing is whether the activities under the permits and licenses,
respectively, in question would create or maintain a situation that is inconsistent with the antitrust laws--.
In its initial decision, the Board will decide those matters relevant to that issue which are in controversy dmong the parties and make its findings on the issue.
(Notice of Consolidated Antitrust Hearing on Application for Construction Perrits and Operating Licenses, page 4, June 28,1972.)"
The applicant's Answer also opposes the Comission's appointment of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
Applicant maintains that issues involved in this matter are so fundamental and novel that they require a full review by the Comission itself. The Staff agrees that there are fundamental issues involved in the proceeding and that questions of first impression for the AEC will be presented. The staff submits, however, that the Comission's Rules of Practice applicable to proceedings subject to Appeal Board review are fully adequate in these ci rcums tances. Those rules (10 CFR Part 2 gg2.785 and 2.786) make pro-vision for reviea and final decision by the Comission when it determines that major or novel questions of policy, law or procedure have been erroneously decided in the proceedings below.
Implicit in these rules provisions is the assumption that the Appeal Board may be called upon to
l o
.. deal with questions which are fundamental, or novel or both; and the explicit is the consequent review role marked out for the Commission i tsel f.
Applicant's motion in this respect should, accordingly, be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
'os ph Rutberg titrust Counsel for \\
AEC Regulatory Staff
. i m/ %
f B
amin H. Vogler~/
~
Assistant Antitrust Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated Bethesda, Maryland.
this 1st day of August,1972.
i
g
~
UNITED STATES OF AERICA ATOMIC ENERGY. COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
DUKE POWER COMPAtlY Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A
)
50-287A
~(Oconee Units 1, 2 & 3,
)
50-369A, 50-370A McGuire Units 1 & 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of REPLY OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO APPLI-CAtlT'S ANSWER TO NOTICE OF HEARING, dated August 1,1972, in the above captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this ist day of August 1972:
Walter W. K. Bennett, Esq.
J. O. Tally, Jr., Esq.
P. O. Box 185 P. O. Drawer 1660 Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 Fayetteveille, North Camlina 28302 Joseph F. Tub ri dy, Esq.
J. A. Bouknight, Jr., Esq.
4100 Cathedral Ave., N. W.
Tally, Tally & Bouknight Washington, D. C. 20016 P. O. Drawer 1660 Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302.
JohnNFarmakides, Esq.
s Atomic safety and Licensing Troy B. Conner, Esq.
Board Panel Reid & Priest U. S. Atomic Energy Comission 1701 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C.
20006 i
Carl Horn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing President, Duke Power Company Board Panel Charlotte, North Carolina 28200 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 William H. Grigg, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel Wallace E. Brand, Esq.
Duke Power Company Department of Justice 422 South Church Street Room 8107, Star Building Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 1101 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20530 l.filliam Warfield Ross, Esq.
Mr. Frank W. Karas NifteenhSret,N.W.
Chief, Public Proceedings Branch
'I
'j Office of the Secretary of the Comission Washington, D. C. 20036 U. S. Atomic Energy Comission Washington, D. C. 20545 A
ef(1 'Rutberg' it#ust Counsel (or EC Regulatory Stiff
0 a
i i
1.I l
DISTRIBUTI0ft:
3 Central Files
-fublic Document Room Local Document Room (2).
i j
Frank W. Karas, SECY (3) 1 A. Braitman (2)
ASLB (James Yore)
J Rutberg (3)
OGC Files t
l l
I 1
e 1
1 4
l O
=
d 4
4 i
1
.