ML22230A062
| ML22230A062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780124 | |
| Download: ML22230A062 (14) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
COMMISSION MEETING
IN THE MATTER OF:
DISCUSSION OF ST. LUCIE
(ALAB-4 20)
Place - Washington, D. C.
Date - Tuesday, 24 Januar y 1978 Pages 1 - 11
Telephone:
( 202) 347-3700
ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, L"'\\fC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capi tol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATlONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY DISCLAWER *
- uclear Regulatory Com.mission held on January 24, 1978 in the This is an unofficial transcript of a ~eet1ng of the *united States Cm.~;;iission1 s offices at 1717 H Street, N. \\*!., Uashington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, correctedj or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
As provided by 18 CFR 9.103, it is not part~of the formal or info~8a~ The transcript is intended solely for aenera1 informafional ourooses.
record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transct*ip~ do not necess:i.rily reflect final deten,:inations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 2ny prnceedin9 as the result of or addressed to anj state:;.ent or arg:1;11ent contained herein, except as the Com~ission may authorize.
1
- '.R 6171 l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E:.AK: ro *
.NR 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
3
.e 4 I 5
DISCUSSION.OF ST. LUCIE (ALAB-420) 6
7
8
9 10 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. w~
11 Washington,
- D., C.
12 Tuesday, 24 January 1978
. 13 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:30 a.m.
- 14 BEFORE:
15 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Ch~irman
16 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner
17 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner
18 RICHARD KENNEDY, Commissioner
19
20
21
22
23
-
- 24
-Federal Reporters, *Inc.
25 2
a-IAIRMAN HENDRIEl. Let us start then on the next 2 section of this morning's agend.a which was~ f~1rther discussion
- 3 by the Commission of the ALAB-420.matter.
4* This was scheduled simply to provide a little 5 time cushion after the oral event which I. thought might run
6* on past one hou~ and it di~,and also to allow opportunity
7 for us to ask the counsel's office to remind us again of the
8 issues here and any further comments you think appropriate
9.in view of this morning"s pre.~entations here; and -then we Io* will see if the_ Commissioriers. have further questions that
-fl th~y want to exercise in this time.
12 MS. BELLz The question that was originally placed
- 13 before.the Commission 9 one of the questions by this petition 14 had to do -with the ~tandards enunciated in 10 CFR 2.714 which
15 deal with late intervention petitions; and the question
16 was whether these standards should be applied directly to late
17 interventions in antitrust heari~gs in view of the policies
18 that were explored in tha South Texas decision.
1'9' That is the statutory policy for early examination
20 of these questions. And, of course~ this petition coming
21 some 31 months after the original application presents just
22 that issue.
23 We asked the parties today here to discuss certain
- 24 related matters to thatc We asked them first of all whether 25 licensing boards could be given discretion to take into
.01.2 3
i - account the lateness of a request for an antitrust hearing 2 in determining the scope of the hearing and in establishing, 3 if it came to thatv establishing relief.
4* The parties seemed to agree that it would be
5 very di+/-ficult to limit the scope of the hearing; they also
6* seemed to agree it would be possible to feed this factor into
7 the relief portions of the hearing.
8 -COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I am not clear as to how
9 that :works when allegations were.laid out to the *end that 10 cities seem to believe th~t Florida Power & Light was guilty
11 of B variety of antitrust violations,all of which presumably
12 would have to be aired in a hearing.
-- 13 MS. BELL: I think they did say it wasn~t the
14 scope of*the hearin~. It was the* examination of the various
1 5 facts.related to their contentions of antitrust violations.
16 They did not believe that those could be limited.
1 7 They did, I believe, say as you got to the relief portions
18 it might be possible to take into account lateness in terms.
19 of the hardship on the applicant and in terms of his own need 20 for power, and proceed on that basis.,
21 MR. EILPERINr The point was, there was a statutory 22 standard and statutory finding that had to be made and that 23 that could not be buried,but in terms of deciding upon relief
- 24 y6u had much broader discretion~
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Presumably *to the extent 0 J*.3 4
. I that at the end of the hearing there is a feeling that what
2 was stated in the affidavit was correct, that the cities were
-- 3 misled; if the Board felt that way ori~ would~'t wa~t to*
- 4. constrain him from offering full relief, if they were misled
5 by Florida Power & Light, if the Board finds that to be true.
6-Florida Power & Light shouldn't profit by that by
7 having a narrower range of relief available to those who
8 were harmed.
9 MS. BELLs I do believe he did say for planning
10 purposes which _affected them as* well as Florida Power & Light
J I that some account could be taken, nevertheless, if it were
12 ~hown, if hardship, true hardship were showno
- I 3* I can't remember the exact word formulation, *but
14 it was along those lines. That there could be some balancing
t 5 there in* apportioning par_ticipation rights.
16 There was a good deal of discussion about the
17 a1fidavits,and Florida Power & Light has suggested that we
18 could send the matter back to the Board to examine those
19 affidavits and get further information and look behind them 20 to consider whether or not there was any truth to the allega-*
. 2 J tions upon which the Appeal Board relied so heavily
- 22 That is a possible course of action the Commission
23 could consider.,
- 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYi Weren't they asserting as 25 well, Ruth, that whatever is done perhaps that issue ought to
.,OJ.4 5
i - be ventilated and cleared up, tt~t charges of that order
2 should be disposed of than left lying or lef_t as a basis for
3 other proceedings without having beeri *clarified?
4* MS. BELL* I believe they were stating that be
5 cause the Appeal Board relied so heavily on it, perhaps
6* exclusively on it,because *1t is fuzzy as to the extent which
7 they did or did not affirm the other findings of the Licensing
8 Board, that that issue should be closely examined.
9 MRe EILPERIN: I think the point also -was that the
10 issue would hav.e to come up, woul_d co_me up at least* in terms
1 I of ~talking about relief,and the real question is whether or
12 not the Commission should seek a preliminary _evidentiary
- 13 finding on that as a condition to intervention or conduct a
14 single h~aring_wit~ intervention already allowed.
15 I think evidence on matters relating to the
16 affidavit will in some fashion necessarily come up.
17 COMMISIONER KENNEDY: Whatever the nature of the
18 hearing?
19 MR. EILPERINa Whatever the nature of the hearing.
20 If the Commission agrees with the Appeal Board.
21 MS. BELLi I think that is confirmed by the Justice
22 Department who said that that could be an element in the
23 total finding~ in the.series of elements which might make up
- 24 a*situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
25 I don't know to what extent you want me to-restate
,OJ.* 5 6 I the things you have already heard.
2 I think, frankly, it is difficult immediately
- 3 after an oral argument to come to muth -- to ~ort 6f in~tantli
- 4. determine what you want to do with this matter.
5 You may want to think about it and meet again.
- 6. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is unquestionably true.
7 The present discussion is not meant to repiace or
8 foreclose that by any means.
9 We obviously will have to meet again,.perhaps
Io* a number of times.
fl
12
13
14
15
16
J 7
18
19 20..
. 2 )'
22 23 24 25
.02. 1 7 sh Could you remind me, letJs see,-South Texas
2 Commission handed that down in_~id-June of last year.
3 MS. BELL8 That involved a*n a_pplic.ation* for an 4* antitrust hearing that came in after the construction permit 5 had already issued.
6-There was no question here that there was a 7 _ stipulation to issue the construction permit
- The proceed
8 ing had concluded in all its aspects, health, safety,
9 environmental, and the antitrust review and a CP -issue,and
IO" thereafter there was a request for an antitrust reviewo fl The Commission chose well, Section 105 provides
12 procedures for antitrust review at the operating license stage
- 13 and the Commission set in motion that antitrust review in its
14 South Texas decision,and.in the course of that discussed --
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Set in motion the operating
16 l icen*se G
17 MS. BELL: -- the operatihg license review,and in the
18 course of that discussed.its antitrust responsibility and. the
19 statute and what it perceived to be in the statute; a thrust
20 of generally early antitrust review of these*matters.
- 21. Although the Commission did note at page 13~ J'For
22 like reasons we would not be limited to mere reference to the
23 Attorney General. If a licensing applicant had falsified
-; 24 pertinent antitrust review information or who had otherwise
25 obtained a license by fraud or concealment, but no such
- 1 ~02. 2 8 ash allegation is contained in the matter before us now.n
2 It was a request.after the CP but before the 3 Qperating license phase of the case for an antitrList review.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is the present status of 5 th*e South Texas decision? Is it beirig challenged?
6-MS. BELL: Yes, -we filed our brief in that matter 7 on Friday in the Court of Appeals
- 8. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Where is the challenge going?
9 MR. EILPERIN: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and 10 *the briefs have now been filed. It will be set for argument
11 some months from now, I expect.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The appeal is arguing,in a
13 word, what?
14 MS. BELL; First of all, it is arguing that it is 15 premature for the Court to become* involved in thiso 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: This is our brief.
17 MS. BELL: Our brief.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The nature of the challenge_ is 19.what? Challenge to the Commission decision that there not be 20 an antitrust hearing now in South Texas 1 but that it wait 21 for whatever operating license review the matter would normally 22 be carried out in?
23 MS. BELL: Basically the Petitibners argue that 24 the antitrust responsibility of this*Commission is more wide-
- .25
- rangtng than the South Texas decision determined and that the
'1.02.3 9 1ash. 1 Commission under *section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act has dis 2 cretion at any time to institute an antitrust proceeding.
- 3 We s~y that in view of the fact that it c~me in
4 after the CP and before the OL and-we set in motion the OL
5 procedures,and that we have sent a request to the Attorney
6 General asking for his advice in the matte~ that that has not
7 yet been received,and upon receipt it will set in motion
8 all of the other steps that are set forward in 105 for review
9 of antitrust allegations.
10 a-IAIRMAN HENDRIE: That has been challenged and we
.11 are in the local Circuit Court on the matter?
12 MS. BELL! That is correct.
- 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEi You might send me along a copy
i 4 of your brief.
15 MS. BELL: We intend to.do that.
1 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
- What do you see the argument in
17 the brief doing with regard to the present matter?*
18 Is there a relation, potential conflict?
19 MR.. EILPERJN: I don*'t think it has very much 20 bearing on the present matter~ It is basically the argument
21 being made by the utilities in the Court of Appeals and they
22 are the same arguments being made before the Commission which.
23 the Commission rejected in setting for~h of the scope of its*
- 24 antitrust jurisdictione
- 25. I don't see any reason for the - dn the basis of I ~02. 4 1 0 the. briefs that have been filed, for the Commission to
2 change its mind. And I see no possibility of a court deci-
- 3. sion until many,-.many months after the Commission**decides
. 4 this matter. I would say* it would. have no bearing whatsoever 5 on the Commission's handling of the case before them now.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: My impression also has been 7 in looking through this case at some length that there are a 8 variety of ways which it can be resolved without any conflict
9 with the conclusions and decisions in the.Houston matter.
10 MR. EILPERINz That is correct.
11 MS. BELL: Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't have anything sub-13 stantive to add now. I would suggest that we not contemplate 14 a seties of more meetings on it if we can help it. It is 15 not that big a case.
16 J hope it would be de~ided in one more meeting.
17 This thing has been knocking around a long time.
18 MS. BEU: Perhaps we should prepare for you at the 19
- next st_age a paper outlining the way we have pro posed re sol v-
20 ing the issue.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: For myself, I very much feel 22 the need for studying considered opinion~ from counsel~s I!', 23 office.
24 Where do we go from here?*
25* a>MMISSIONER-BRADFORDi Fair enough.
.. 02.5 1 1 sh The antitrust proceeding itself would be a big case, 9 2 but in the form it is before us now I would hate to think we
3 ~ould plan four or five more meetings on it.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDR IEz Fine~
5 Anything else?
6-I'm delighted to hear the view.
7 I support it.
8.If there seems to be no particular need for fur
9 ther Commission discu.ssion at this time, I thank everyone
10 *very much for coming.
J 1 We will close this meeting and the Commission will
12 reconvene at 1:30 this afternoon.
- 13 (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m.,the hearing was closedo)
14
1 5 16 17 18
1 9
20 21 22
---, 23 24
- z5*