ML19269B790
| ML19269B790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1978 |
| From: | Shenefield J JUSTICE, DEPT. OF, ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF |
| To: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269B791 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901050299 | |
| Download: ML19269B790 (2) | |
Text
~
i lHuittb States Department of Justite WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 A15tST ANT ATTORhtv GENEP nL 19 DEC 1978 orm.v o.m.
Howard K. Shapar, Esquire Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
NRC Docket Nos. 50-443A and 50-444A
Dear Mr. Shapar:
You have requested our further advice pursuant to Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in regard to the above-captioned application.
The Depart-ment previously rendered advice respecting this application on December 4, 1973 and November 13, 1975.
We understand that the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWECi and Maine Public Service Company propose to participate with the Public Service Company of New Hampshire and s=veral other licensees in the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, Units No. 1 and No.
- 2. Under the participation plan, MMWEC would obtain a 139.99 megawatt share (or a 5.86238% ownership interest) of the facility, while Maine Public Service Company would acquire a 34.82 megawatt share (or a 1.50009% ownership interest).
Both of these applicants underwent successful antitrust review by the Department, as reported in my letter of August 27, 1977, in connection with the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, NRC Docket No. 50-423A.
MMWEC also underwent affirmative antitrust review, as communicated in my lerker of April 20, 1978, in connection with the Pilg.im Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.
2, NRC Docket 50-4714.
790ios o;;t9e i-~ +.
{
'l A,,,,/
i Our review of the information submitted for the proposed additional participants, as well as other relevant information, has disclosed no basis upon which to change our previous conclusion that no antitrust hearing will be required regarding this nuclear facility.
- ncerely,
% c/
I Jo in H.
Shenefield Asais nt Attorney General titrust Division f