ML19312C643
| ML19312C643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1971 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190851 | |
| Download: ML19312C643 (6) | |
Text
.
l V
")-
- [
UITITED STATES OF MRICA NIOMIC EITERGY C0!11ISSIGH In the Matter of
)
)
DIT:~C POWER COMPAITY
)
Docket Hos b-2(p9-h 270-A, (Oconee Huelear Ctation
)
o i -is Lnits 1, 2 and 3)
)
gg 7/
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the MEMORAHD131 A1.D ORDER issued by the Comission dated,A-il 5,1971 in the captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in 'he United States mail, first class or air mail, this 6th day of April a.?l:
J. O. Tally, Esq.
Attorney General, State
"' ally, Tally & Ecuknight of Georgia P. O. Drawer 1660 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302 Carl Horn, Jr., Ecq.
Joseph B. Knotts, Esc.
Vice President and General I.egulatory Staff Counsel Counsel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Duke Power Company Washin5 ton, D. C. 20545 P. O. Box 2178 Charlotte, North Carolina 2 201 Roy E. Snapp, Esq.
1725 K Street, N. W., Suite 512 William Warfield lions, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20006 Wald, Harkrader, Uicholson a Ross 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.
'.1 Attorney General, State of Washington, D. C. 20036 North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Attorney General, Otate of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina 29fM1 l h $dC M s _k
!A Office of the Secretary of the C s~ ion ec: Mr. Knotts Mr. Wells f( ' ~
N F. Karas
, ?.i '
,1
~
[H. Smith j\\
7 ['* 5 4
4
}
M'.
.y p
p.-
J Al
\\% a
./
v s,W.
. s p/
g.
-p 7 912190h/
y t'M h
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C030iISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman James T. Ramey Wilfrid E. Johnson
,)
)
IN THE MATTER OF
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-26 9-A'
)
(0conee Nuclear Station, 50-270-A
)
Units 1, 2 and 3) 50-287-A
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On December 29, 1970, the Co= mission published in the Federal Register a " Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility Operating License" in the captioned dockets (35 F. R.
19708).
Insofar as is here relevant, the Notice provided that:
" Pursuant to subsection 105 c. (3) of the Act, any person.who intervened or who sought by timely written notice,to the Cee-issien to intervene in the construc-tion permit proceedings for these facilities to obtain a determination of antitrust considerctions or to advance a jurisdictional bacis for such determination has the right to obtain an entitrust reriew under section 105 c. of :he !.ct, of the cpplication for an operating license for these facilities, upon written request to the Cc= mission nade within 25 days after the date of publication of this notice..."
-~
A.
On January 18, 1971, eleven North Carolina municipalities filed'a joint petition to intervene for the purpose of obtaining the antitrust 1/
review dealt with in the cited Notice provision.
Petitioners asked that a copy of the Oconee license application and of their joint petition be transmitted to the Attorney General for his review pursuant P.o Section 105 c. of the Atomic Energy Act; that hearings be held on the application with participation by petitioners as parties; and that the application be denied or conditioned on antitrust grounds.
The petitioning municipalities were joint intervenors in the construc-tion permit proceedings for the Oconee facilities, at which time they challenged the licensability of those facilities under Section 104 b. of
^
the Atomic Energy Act.
The purpose of that challenge, in terms of the above Kotice provision, was "to advance a jurisdictional basis" which would permit petitioners "to obtain a determination of antitrust considerations".
The municipalities are, therefore, within the class entitled to request antitrust review pursuant to Section 105 c.(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by P. L.91-560 (December 19, 1970).
The regulatory staff, in a response filed on January 28, 1971, took note of petitioners' statu3 under Section 105 c. (3) of the Act and advised that, in accordance with 10 C"R Section 2 102(d)(1), it would promptly 1/
The joint petitioners are the following North Carolina municipalities:
The cities of Statesville, liigh Point, Lexington, Monroe, Shelby, and Albemarle; and'the towns of Cornelius, Drexel, Granite Falls, Neuton and Lincolaton.
.w
, N l
submit the municipalities' joint petition and the Oconee application 2/
to the Attorney General for review pursuant to Section 105 c. of the Act.
The staff's response went on to contend that intervention and a hearing on antitrust considerations are matters appropriately to be dealt with following antitrust review pursuant to Section 105 c.
In this regard the staff pointed out that, under our Rules of Practice, the Attorney General's advice, or notice that the Attorney General has not rendered any such advice, will be published in the Federal Register; and that, in either event, an opportunity will then be afforded joint petitioners to pursue their intervention and hearing requests on the antitrust aspects of the application.
10 CFR Section 2.102(d)(3).
The staff response also noted that the joint petition does not appear to seek intervention and a hearing on catters outside the sphere of anti-trust considerations; and that no contentions are asserted relating to the matters embrisced by the " Notice of Proposed Issuance of Facility Operating j
License" for Duke Power Company's Oconee Unit No. 1 (Decket No. 50-269),
)
which was published in the Federal Register on January 8, 1971 (36 F. R.
296). As regards this Notice, the staff added that, in accordance with 1
Sectien 105 c. (8) of the Act, an operating license centaining appropriate 2/
The docket of this preceeding reflects that such a tranc=ittal, as well as a later trcnsmittal of the applicant's response to the petition (in Era),has in fact been made.
l 1
g
\\
i k
4 e
conditions relating to antitrust matters, as provided in 10 CFR Section 50.55 b., may be issued for this unit prior to consideration i
of and findings with respect to antitrust matters.
The applicant's answer to the petition, in addition to its response to petitioners' allegations, also points to Section 105 c. (8) and to the corresponding provisions of our Rules permitting issuance of an
-operating license conditioned on the final outcome of the antitrust review process.
The Commission believes that action on the petitioners' intervention and hearing requests should await the notice which will later be pub-lished in accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.102(d)(3). Accordingly, we note at this time that the petitioning municipalities are entitled to request antitrust review pursuant to Section 105 c. of the Act; that they have timely sought such review; and that appropriate action has been taken by the staff to initiate this review. Within that context, final action on the instant petition is deferred. We believe it would be desirable for the joint petitioners to renew their requeats or file an cmended petition at the appropric.t2 time following public.stion of the Section 2.102(d)(3) notice.
In tching this step we further note that, in accordance with Section 103 c. (G) of the Atomic Energy Act and in con-formity with the Notice cf Prco::s2d Issuance published on January 8,1971, such license as may be iccc:d for Oconee Unit No. I will be conditioned O
A
~.
~
to assure that any subsequent findings and orders of the Cocunission with respect to antitrust matters will be given full force and effect.
(See 10 CFR Section 50.55 b.).
It is so ORDERED.
Commissioner Larson did not participate in this matter.
By'the Commission.
i
[W W. B. McCool Secretary of the Commission Dated r.wril c; _ ic n 9
i y=
y 9
w
- ywg,
.e
-