ML19208B665
| ML19208B665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New England Power |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1979 |
| From: | Shenefield J JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208B658 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909210152 | |
| Download: ML19208B665 (2) | |
Text
.
bs5sm3 U.inittb 6tates Department of 3ustitt r-
.I' W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20530
%,w%.y l y
ansta=v arten=av castaat aseT6TauST Diviss0M 2 0 AUG 1979 Howard K. Shapar, Esquire Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: New England Power Service New England Power Units 1 and 2 NRC Docket Nos. 50-568A and 50-569A
- ~. --. - -
Dear Mr. Shapar:
You have requested our advice pursuant to Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in connection with the purchase by Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC) and Maine Public Service Comrany of ownership interests in the above captioned nuclear units.
In addition, you have informed us that Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (Bangor-Hydro) will increase its existing ownership share by 3.13%.
Maine Public Service's proposed inte'res Yould be less than 20 MW per unit, and Bangor-Hydro was reviewed in my letter of April 11, 1977 In connection with its current ownership interest in these units.
MMNEC, which will be purchasing a 6.008% ownership share, while ot previously reviewed in connection with these units, was recently reviewed in my letter of December 19, 1978, pertaining to Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-443A and 50-444A.
Our review of the information submitted in connectign with the preseit application, as well as other relevant information, has disclosed no evidence that the proposed D.
N 3p;j60b3 l
- D D 2 1 0 l $5 ([
K
participation by Maine Public Service, Bangor-Hydro and MMWEC in the New England Power Units would either create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust lawr under Section 105(c).
We do not, therefore, believe it is necessary for the Commission to hold an antitrust hearing in this matter.
incerelv J u' Shenefield)
Jchn H.
As istiant _ Attorney General
~Intitrust Div'ision
- ~ -.. _.......... _ _. _.. _. _ _ _
r m
C.
N s
,