ML19312C645
| ML19312C645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1971 |
| From: | Liedquist R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190853 | |
| Download: ML19312C645 (4) | |
Text
9 e w I /t dt l_QD my all authm
)y7eA i
/q
'/
ANTS-Yh, 3.
800. & UHL. Mc, s
f M.
gacyr.c3 s'
g, *,%
3 Of OCT131971 * -
Uti!TED STATES OF Af' ERICA
('.
nn.m um
'.4 ATOMIC. ENERGY COMMISSIOri iuw un
' Qe[
BEFORE T!!E COMt11SSI0tl w
In the !!atter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-269V DUKE PC',4ER COMPAf1Y
)
50-270
)
50-287 (0conce fluclear Station,
)
Units 1, 2, and 3)
)
REPLY Of TiiE AEC REGULATORh STAFF TO JOI;!! PETIT 10'i 0F ELEVEllf0RTH CAROLItlA MUf11CIPALITIES On September 4,1971, the Commissiv.;, pursuant to Section 105c.(5) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, published in the Federal Register the Attorney General's advice concerning the antitrust aspects of the license application in the captioned matter, together with a notice providing thirty days within which interested parties might file petitions for leave to intervene and requests for an antitrust hearing.
In a joint petition dated September 29, 1971, eleven fiorth Carolina municipalities - the cities of Statesville, High Point, Lexington, Monroe, Shelby, and Albemarle, and the towns of Cornelius, Orexel, Granite Falls, itewton, and Lincolnton (municipalities) - requested leave to intervene and an antitrust hearing.
I.
An antitrust hearing is required in this matter.
The applical. ion for an operating license was pending before the Comission upon enact:::ent of Public Law 91-560. Through a joint petition dated January 18, 1971,
.,,12190f5~3 4
, I the municipalities timely sought antitrust review.1/
Accordingly, the application herein was forwarded to the Attorney General for prelicensing advice as to whether Commission proceedings involving inquiry into anti-trust aspects were warranted.
"Such proceedings must be held by the Commission if the Attorney General advises that there may be adverse antitrust aspects and recommends a hearing."2/ The Attorney General has rendered such advice.
In those instailces where the Commission holds an antitrust hearing on an application fnr a construction permit or an operating license, Sectinn 105c.(5) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, require:. the Commiu. inn to make a finding as to whether the activities under the license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
In arriving at such a finding, the, Commission "shall give due considera-tion to the advice received from the Attorney General and to such evidence as may be provided during the prcceedings in connection with such subject ta t te r...... "
The Attorney General's advisory letter on the antitrust aspects of the pending ap' plication focuses upon the alleged conduct of applicant Duke 1/ See " Memorandum and Order" of the Comission, In the Matter of Duke
)
Power Comoany, Docket tios. 50-269A, 50-270A, anc 50-237A, April 5,1971.
2/ S. Rep t{o. 91-1247, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 30 (1970).
3] 42 U.S.C. 12135c.(5) (1970).
O Power Company vis-a-vis its customer-competitors. Among the matters believed by the Attorney General to raise " substantial questions re-garding the applicant's activities and probable activities under the license" is the applicant's alleged refusal to coordinate its nuclear generation expansion program with certain municipalities who wish to participate in that program by purchasing an interest in or power supply from the Oconee nucicar facilities.
In their joint petition, the municipalities assert that they are whole-sale custcmers of the applicant who compete with applicant in the retail sale of electric power.
They request, inter alia, that the award of any operating licenses be conditioned upon provision to them of an oppor-tunity to purchase an interest in the Oconee nuclear facilities, main-taining that their ability to remain competitive with the applicant and to survive as viable utilities is dependent on such relief.
In view of the foregoina. the staff believes that '. would be appro-priate for the Commission to admit the municipalities as full parties in the required antitrust hearing.
11 The legislative history of Sectign 105 of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's " Rules of Practice" contemplate that hearings on the ar.titrust
c
~
4_
aspects of an application for a construction permit or an ope > ating license will be held separately from the hearing held on the radio-logical health and safety and environmental aspects of the application.4/
Although their joint petition is based solely upon antitrust considera-tions, we note that the municipalities request to "become parties for all purposes" and to be accorded " full rights.....to which parties are entitled, before the Atomic Energy Commission and all boards and authori-ties subordinate thereto.... " To the extent that the municipalities re-quest leave to intervene in any Commission procecding other than the re-quired antitrust hearing, their joint petition should be denied.
The joint petition does not raise any contentions concerning health and safety, national security, or environmental considerations concerning the pending applications, and, accordingly, clearly fails to meet the substan-tive requirements of Section 2.714 of the Commission's " Rules of Practice."
Respectfully submitted, i k / / D b m; uY Robert E. Liedquist/'
Antitrust Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, S i e, 1N h dat M oc t.+cr, 19 71.
- - - - ~ ~
i/ S. Rep. No. 91-1247, 91s t Cong. 2d Sess.,15 (1970).
10 CFR Appendix A, Part VIII.
-