ML19210B762
| ML19210B762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1979 |
| From: | Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911120265 | |
| Download: ML19210B762 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
?
BEFORE THE COMMISSION q.
Mg O
-i s d 4 In the Matter of NRC PUBLIC DOCIE 7 Red BOSTON EDISON ';0MPANY NRC Docket No. 50-293A (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Me Station)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE "WITHC'.AWAL OF INTERVENTION AS MOOT" FILED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPALS On May 24, 1971, the Power Planning Comittee of the Municipal Electric Association of Massachusetts; the City of Chicopee, Municipal Lighting Plant; Town of Braintree, Electric Light Department; Town of Shrewsbury, Electric Light Plant; and Town of Wakefield, Municipal Light Department (" Massachusetts Municipals") petitioned the fonner Atomic Energy Comission for permission to intervene with respect to antitrust matters in the pending proceedings for the issuance of an operating license to Boston Ediscri Company for the Pilgrim Huelear Power Station. The Massachusetts Municipals alleged, inter alia, that they bad sought from Boston Edison Company an opportunity to purchase a share of the output of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station and arrange fer the trans-mission of that power, but that Boston Edison Company had refused their request.
On October 1,1971, the Massachusetts Municipals renewed their joint petition to intervene and requested an antitrust hearing.
By letter dated August 2,1971, the Department of Justice advised the fonner Atomic Energy Comission, pursuant to Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, concernifig Boston Edison Company's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. That letter contains the following conclusion:
1312 350
/
82 9 0 g o
_2-We conclude that many of the antitrust allegations advanced by the Massachusetts Municipals raise sub-stantial questions, both with respect to the collective activity of the utilities in New England and with respect to the unwillingness of BECO to seriously negotiate with the municipals regarding Pilgrim power. Accordingly, a hearing on the antitrust issues appears to be necessary here.
It is possible that BECO and the intervenors may decide that their interests would be best served by mutual efforts to negotiate arrangements to insure the inter-venors reasonable access to low cost power, and that a hearing might thereby be rendered unnecessary. We would of course be pleased to provide further advice to the Comission on the need for hearing if in light of subse-quent developments the Commission shoula so request.
On October 14, 1971, the AEC Regulatory Staff filed with t::e Comission its answer to the Massachusetts Municipals Petition to Intervene and Request a Hearing. The Staff stated that it had no objection to the admission of the Massachusetts Municipals as parties to an antitrust hearing. The Massachusetts Municipals' petition to intervene and request for an antitrust hearing are still pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, as in the advice of the Department of Justice to hold an antitrust hearing in connection with this matter.
On October 11, 1979, the Massachusetts Municipals filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission their " Withdrawal Of Intervention As Moot". The Mass-achusetts Municipals advised the Commission that, over the years, they have been negotiating a settlement of their antitrust claims against the Boston Edison Company, and that all parties had now reached final agreement. The Massachusetts Municipals therefore withdrew, as moot, their intervention.
The NRC Staff has no objection to the withdrawal of the petition.
Since the Department's August 2, 1971, advice letter in connection with the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, the Department had occasion to advise the Comission with respect to Boston Edison Company's Pilgrim Nuclear 1317 357 Generating Station, Unit No. 2 (NRC Docket No. 50-471A). On June 26, 1974, the Department advised the Commission that its review of information cc,ncerning Boston Edison Company did not indicate any need for an antitrust hearing concerning Pilgrim 2.
Similarly, on April 20, 1978, the Department advised the Commission in connection with three additional applicants for Pilgrim 2, namely, the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant, and the Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. That letter concluded:
Our review of the information submitted by these three new applicants, as well as other relevant infonnation, has disclosed no basis upon which to change our earlier conclusion that an antitrust hearing will not be necessary in this matter.
The combination of the above letters regarding Unit 2 and the Massachusetts Municipals' withdrawal indicates that the basis for the concern ef the Attorney General with respect to the antitrust aspects of the Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2, may now be resolved. Accordingly, the NRC Staf f will communicate with the Attorney Geneial to determine, in light of recent develop-ments, whether the position of the ittorney General reflected in the August 2, 1971, advice letter remains valid.
Vhen a response to this inquiry is re-ceived, we will provide the Connission with our views as to proposed course of action to follow with regard to this matter.
Respectfully submitted, k
d-packR.Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th dry of October,1979.
3312 353
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY NRC Docket No. 50-293A (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE " WITHDRAWAL OF INTERVENTION AS MOOT" FILED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPALS in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 24th day of October 1979:
Chairman Hendrie Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Gilinsky Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Comissioner Kennedy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jerome Saltzman, Chief Washington, D.C.
20555 Antitrust & Indemnity Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Commissioner Bradford Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert C. McDiarmid Spiegel & McDiarmid Comissioner Aheame 2600 Virginia Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20037 Washington, D.C.
20555 George Lewald, Esq.
Samuel J. Chilk Ropes & Gray Secretary of the Comission 225 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Washington, D.C.
20555 George F. Bruder, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Bruder & Gentilo Office of the Secretary 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20555 13J2 459 e
-2 Boston Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. R. M. Butler Nuclear Projects Manager 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Victor Kazanjian, Esq.
Geaeral Counsel Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Wack R. Goldberg f
Counsel for NRC Staff,7
- 312 360
-