ML19312C647
| ML19312C647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1971 |
| From: | Tally J PIEDMONT CITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, TALLY, TALLY & BOUKNIGHT |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190855 | |
| Download: ML19312C647 (11) | |
Text
~
KW.
p.
.~
- 3 g' -
BEFORE 'IliE
.(-
't UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY C0hMISSION Q
- g _
~ ~l
\\
.;,'; /
- i....
- ,y
. :;s.
.' ( \\
IN THE MA' ITER OF
~<([ T *A
. su DUKE POWER COMPANY (Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3)
'O
/
DOCKET NOS. 50-269 50-270 50-287 JOINT PETITION OF THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPALITIES IN NORTH CAROLINA:
STATESVILLE, HIGH POINT, LEXING' ION, MONROE, SHELBY, ALBEMARLE, CORNELIUS, DREXEL, GRANITE FALLS, NEWTON, and LINCOLNTON FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND BECOME PARTIES FOR ALL PURPOSES AND TO OBTAIN AN ANTITRUST REVIEW Tally, Tally S Bouknight Attorneys and Counsellors at Law P. O. Drawer 1660 Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302 Attorneys for Joint Petitioners 29 September 1971 WIb TALLY TALLY & BOURNIGHT
~7912190 f
ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAYETTEVELS. M. C.
h
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY C0bHISSION IN THE MATTER OF DUKE POWER COMPANY (Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3)
DOCKET NOS. 50-269 50-270 50-287 JOINT PETITION OF THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPALITIES IN :10R1H CAROLINA:
STATESVILLE, HIGil POINT, LEXINGTON, MONROE, SHELBY, ALBEMARLE, CORNELIUS, DREXEL, GRANITE FALLS, NEWTON, and LINCOLNTON FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND BECOME PARTIES FOR ALL PURPOSES AND TO OBTAIN AN ANTITRUST REVIEW PETITIONERS 1.
Petitioners are municipalities in and of the State of North Carolina whose names and addresses are:
City of Statesville Statesville, North Carolina 4
City of High Point High Point, North Carolina Cit)r of Lexington Lexington, North Carolina TALLY. TALLY & BOUMNIGHT ATTOftNEYS AT LAW PAYETTEVELE. M. C.
~
2-City of Monroe Monroe, North Carolina City of Shelby Shelby, North Carolina City of Albemarle Albemarle, North Carolina Town of Cornelius Cornelius, North Carolina Town of Drexel Drexel, North Carolina Town of Granite Falls Granite Falls, North Carolina Town of Newton Newton, North Carolina Town of Lincolnton Lincolnton, North Carolina who come now, in accord with Sections 105c.(3) and 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice; and, notice of receipt of application of facility operating license by Duke Power Company having been published in the Federal Register on 29 December 1970; and these petitioners having participated as intervenors in the construction permit stage of this proceeding; and having there sought to obtain a determination of antitrust issues, hereby move to intervene and to be admitted as parties; and to be accorded the full rights, among others, to file motions, institute pleadings, submit testimony, cross-examine wit-nesses, submit briefs, and argue orally, to which parties are entitled, before the Atomic Energy Commission nd all boards and authorities subordinate thereto, including the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; and hereby request an antitrust review pursuant to Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, TALLY. TALt Y & BOUKNIGHT ATTORMEYS AT LAW
(*MrMEVELE.N. C
]
as amended.
Counsel for all joint petitioners and upon whom service of all process and papers may be made (and upon whom all joint petitioners request and direct that such be made), with their address, are:
Tally, Tally 6 Bouknight Attorneys and Counsellors at Law P. O. Drawer 1660 Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302 DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONERS 2.
The joint petitioners for leave to intervene are North Carolina municipalities each of which owns and operates an electric distribution system, selling electricity at retail to ultimate consumers within and without their municipal borders. All of the joint petitioners are captive wholesale custo-mers of applicant Duke Power Company (Duke); and in many instances compete with Duke for retail customers.
Together they pay Duke millions of dollars each year for wholesale power.
The availability and price of power to each By Petition dated 18 January 1971 Petitioners previously sought to inter-vene in these proceedings.
Staff and the applicant Company responded to such Petition and the Commission thereafter entered an Order stating in part:
"The Commission believes that action on the Petitioners' intervention and hearing requests should await the notice which will later be published 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 requests or file an amended petition at the appropriate time following publication of
' ce Section 2.102 (d) (3) notice...."
Publication of the Attorney General's advice pursuant to Section 2.102(d)(3) having been made on 4 September 1971, it is now appropriate and timely for Petitioners to renew their requests, and this pleading fully does so.
TALLY. TALLY & BOUKNHpW ATTORNEYS AY LAW PAYETTEVELE. M. C.
4 and all of petitioners are initially and inextricably bound with and in the determinations in this proceeding.
PETITIONERS' INTERESTS 3.
Duke currently enjoys a monopoly in the generation of bulk power over a substantial portion of Western and Central North Carolina. Duke, further, is a signatory of agreements with each of Carolina Power and Light Company (CPSL), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCESG), and Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO), which agreements (when considered with bi-lateral contracts between each of the other above-named utilities) pro-vide for the interchange of power and joint planning among the four companies.
Duke, CP6L, SCE5G and VEPCO together monopoli:e the generation of electric power over a substantial geographical area in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. Nuclear energy, developed at the expense of the taxpayers of the United States, offers, when utili:ed on a large scale, a source of energy lower in cost than any now available to Duke.
The necessity of large-scale construction permits Duke access to this low-cost source only throrgh its interconnection and exchange agreements with the other named utilities.
Petitioners have no access to the ' pool" in which Duke, CPSL, VEPCO and SCESG are effective participants. As Duke, a giant utility, is unable alone to reap the full economic benefits of nuclear power, and as each petitioner operates an electric system much smaller than Duke's, none of petitioners is able alone (nor by combination with one another) effectively to enjoy the benefits of this low-cost source of power. Monopoli:ation of the benefits of nuclear power and of electric power marketing over petitioners' geographic area by Duke appears then imminent.
TAALv. TALLY & BOUKNIONT l ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAYETTEVILLE. M. C.
. 4.
Petitioners' ability to offer electrical energy at retail rates competitive with those of Duke, thsir ability to survive as viable utilities, is in the long run dependent on their opportunity to enjoy equally with their competitors access to the miracle of nuclear electric generation.
PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS 5.
The antitrust statutes of the United States and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 in the circumstances of Petitioners' wholesale power captive status, and Duke's otherwise monopolistic position, above detailed, require that the award of any licenses for the construction and operation of these proposed facilities be denied or conditioned upon provision to Petitioners of opportunity to purchase a fair share of these facilities and to be afforded such other rights as may be necessary to promote free compe-tition and to prevent monopolization.
6.
Petitioners have made formal demand upon Duke to respond and commit itself to these petitioners and to this Commission that, if it should be licensed for these facilities, it would offar to sell to these petitioners, pursuant to license conditions and promises to be fixed by this Commission and other appropriate authorities, a fair share of the ownership and capacity of such facilities; and petitioners here renew that request and demand.
7.
Petitioners here state their expectation and wi'lingness, so far as the propriety and practicality of their owning a fair share of these facilities is concerned, to acquire, by purchase, construction, lease, con-tract or otherwise, any and all reasonably requireJ. or appropriate subsidiary or additional facilities so as, fully and fairly, to integrate themselves and rALLv. TALLY & BoustN1GMT ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAYETTEVELE. N. C.
. their fair share of these facilities into the electric generation here in-volved. At the same time, of course, Petitioners reserve all their rights under law including, but not limited to, rights related to wheeling, pool participation, and the like; and the decretal protection of such rights is implied and included in the prayer relief's reaussted below, particularly
- 4) and 5) thereof.
PRAYERS WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that:
1)
They be allowed f lly, as above stated, to intervene; u
- 2) They be accorded an antitrust review pursuant to Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and other applicable law; i
3)
Hearings be held thereon, with these petitioners permitted fully to participate therein; and upon all such
- 4) Duke's application be denied or conditioned, as above detailed, to avoid violation of or inconsistency with the antitrust provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the other provisions of the antitrust laws'of the United States; and TALLY TALLY & BOUMNIGHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAYETTEVILLE. M. C.
m
l i
t
- S) Petitioners be granted such other and further relief as to which they are entitled.
Respectrully submitted, IllE MUNICIPALITIES OF STATESVILLE, HIGH POINT, LEXINGTON, MONROE, SHELBY, ALBEMARLE, CORNELIUS, DREXEL, GRANITE FALLS, NEWTON and LINCOLNTON, all of NORTH CAROLINA BY:
A Tal' T fally 4 Bour p l At c/neys and Co-eFlors at Law P.
. Drawer 16 etteville, North Carolina 28302 Attorneys for Petitioners TALLY. TALLY & BOUKNIGHT ATTOftNEYS AT LAW FAYETTEVILLE. N. C.
9 VERIFICATION NORTil CAROLINA CUMBERLAND COUNTY J. O. TALLY, JR., first being duly sworn, says that:
He is Attomey for the Petitioners herein; that he is authori:ed to Ale the foregoing Petition on their behalf; that he has read it and knows the contents thereof; and that to the best of his knowledge, informa-tion and belief the statements made n it are true.
J J.t.
11y,'Jr.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public of the State of North Carolina, County of Cumberland, this 29th day of September,1971.
/
/
/..
. u.:n..
'i+l'46 /
Notary Public My Commission Expires: 2-22-76
\\
rALLv. TALLY & SOUKNIGHT ATTOftNEYS AT LAW FAYETTEVILLE. M. C.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C0hMISSION IN THE MATTER OF
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
DOCKET NOS. 50-269 (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION,
)
50-270 UNITS 1, 2 and 3)
)
50-287 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing document dated 29 September 1971, were served upon the following by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class or Air Mail, this the 29th day of September,1971:
Samuel Jensch, Esquire Dr. Clarke Williams Chairman Deputy Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Brookhaven National Laboratory United States Atomic Energy Commission Upton, Long Island, New York Washington, D. C.
Roy B. Snapp, Esquire Dr. Hugh Paxton 1710 H Street, N. W.
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Washington, D. C. 20006 Los Alamos, New Mexico Honorable John Carl West Reece A. Hubbard Governor of the State of S. C.
County Supervisor State House Oconce County, South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina Carl Horn, Esquire Stanley T. Robinson, Jr.
President Chief Public Proceedings Branch Duke Power Company Office of the Secretary Charlotte, North Carolina" United States Atomic Energy Co= mission Washington, D. C. 20545 Honorable Robert W. Scott Governor of State of N. C.
Thomas F. Engelhardt Capitol Building Trial Counsel Raleigh, North Carolina Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory Station United States Atomic Energy Co= mission Algie A. Wells, Chairman Washington, D. C. 20545 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel United States Atomic Energy Comission William H. Grigg Washington, D. C. 20545 Assistant General Counsel Duke Power Company Dr. John Henry Buck Charlotte, North Carolina The Budd Company Phoenixville, Pennsylvania TALLY. TALLY & SOUKNIGHY ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAYETTEVELE. N. C.
e Peter A. Morris Harry M. Lightsey, Jr.
Director Assistant' Attorney General Division of Reactor Licensing The South Carolina Public Service Commission United States Atomic Energy Commission 325 Hampton State Office Building Washington, D. C. 20545 Columbia, South Carolina 7
f A
Jf 04 Tally, Jr.
A 7a1
, Tally 6 uknight
. O. Drawer 1 o0 yetteville, North Carolina 28302 l
l l
l i
TALLY. TALLY & BouuMioMT ATTOftNEYS AT LAW FAYETTEVELE. M. C.
l