ML19322B992
| ML19322B992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1971 |
| From: | Knotts J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B991 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912200708 | |
| Download: ML19322B992 (4) | |
Text
d
-iN f
l, 4
s s. =.. ~
. '.D h
e g. - ;, p i ;a- @ B
/g (6
UNIT 23 STATES OF AMERICA -
- 50. ;2$,4
~
7
.s ATOMIC INERGY CC M ISSION g
s
'.J /
s 7
3EFCRE THE COM ISSION
,..,^n a.,o'\\,$
In th'e er of
)
o
)
DUKE PO'4ER CCM?ANY
)
Decket Nos. 50-269
}
50-270 (Oconee Nuclear Station,
)
50-287 Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
REPLY OF THE A2C RZGMTCRY JT.UF '"O JOIE PETITION OF THE MUNICIPAI.IT!2S C7 STAT 2SVI'L2, HIGH POINT, LZXINGTON, MONRC2, OH.%. 3Y, AL3EE\\RI2., CCRNELIUS, DREXEL, GRANITE FALLS, NE'#rCN, AND LINCOIJTTON La Dece:nber 29, 1970, a "Notica of Receipt of Application for Facility Operating License" in the captioned dockets wat published in the Federal Re3 ster (35 F.R. 19708). That Notice provided, in pertinent part, that:
1
" Pursuant to subsection 105c.(3) of the Act, any perron who intervened or who sought by timely written notice to l
the Commission to intervene in the construction permit pro-ceedings for these facilitias to obtain a determination of antitrust considerations or to advance a jurisdictional basis for such determination has che right to obtain an antitrust review under section 105c. of the Act, of the application for an operatin;; licanse for these facilities, upon written request to cha Coc:aission made within 25 days af ter the date of publication of this notice..."
The eleven North Carolina =unicipalities listad in the heading have filed l
a joint petitica dated January 13, 1971, coeking an antitrust review in accordance with the forescin3 notice, and the transmittal of the license application and the petition to the Attorney General.
The petitioners
- 7.912200763
/
. also sought leave to intervene and requested a hearing. As relief, the petitioners asked denial of the applications or conditioning of the licenses on antitrust 3 rounds.
The eleven municipalities were joint intervenors in the construction permit proceedings in these dockets, at which time they challenged, inter alia, the consideration of the application under section 104b.
rather than section 103 of the Act.
Thus, they at that time sought a
" determination of antitrust considerations or to advance a jurisdictional basis" therefor.~1/
The municipalities are within the class who are entitled to request such a review pursuant to subsection 105c. (3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act). Their request for an antitrust review is timely.
Accordingly, we will, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.102(d)(1), promptly transmit the eleven municipalities ' joint petition and Duke Power Company's application to the Attorney General pursuant to section 105c. of the Act.
In our view, the requests to intervene and for a hearing on antitrust matters are premature.
Such requests would be appropriate following the antitrust review under section 105c.
Section 2.102(d)(3) of the Commis-sion's " Rules of Practice," 10 C71 Part 2, provides that the Attorney
-I7 See the joint petition of the eleven municipalities et al. for leave to intervene in this matter dated August 10, 1967, and the accompanying motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The eleven municipalities were granted leave to intervene by an order of the atomic safety and licensing board dated August 28, 1967.
3 General's advice or a notice that the Attorney General has not rendered any such advice will be published in the Federal Register.
In either event, the opportunity would be afforded for any person whose interest may be affected to intervene and request a hearing on antitrust aspects of the application.
Accordingly, the petition, insofar as it requests intervention and a public hearing on antitrust matters at this time, should be dismissed, but with leave to the joint petitioners to renew their requests or file an amended petition at the appropriate time as described above.
The staff would point out, in addition, that the petition does not appear intended to seek interventioa and a hearing on matters outside the sphere of asserted antitrust considerations.
Specifically, no contentions are asserted relating to the matters, including the health and safety of the public or the connon defense and security, which are embraced within the Notice of Proposed Issuance of an Operating License for Duke Power Company's Oconee Unit No. 1 (Docket No. 50-269) which was published in the Federal Register on January 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 296).
In accordance with subsection i
105c.(8) of the Act, and as stated in the Notice of Proposed Issuance pub-lished January 3, 1971, an operating license, containing appropriate condi-tions relating to antitrust matters as provided in 10 C7R 50.53(b), may be issued for Oconee Unit No.1 in advance of consideration of and findings with respect to antitruat matters. The instant petition would not affect
4.-
that procedure. As required by subsection 105c. (8) of the Act, if a license were issued pursuant to the foregoing procedurr-the license conditions in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(b) would assure that any sub-sequent findings and orders of the Commission with respect to antitrust matters will be given full force and effect.
The staff would suggest that the Commission:
(1) note that the eleven North Carolina municipalities are entitled to request antitrust review pursuant to section 105c. of the Act, that they have timely requested such review, and that the staff will promptly take appropriate action to initiate such review by the Department of Justice; and (2) dismiss as premature, but without prejudice, that much of the petition as requests intervention and a public hearing on antitrust matters at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
. f _ ( t,e (. ( [ : Y Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.
's Counsel for AEC Re3ulatory Staf f Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 28th day of January, 1971.
_