ML19290D534

Advises That No Antitrust Hearing Is Necessary Re Proposed Transfer of Ownership Interest by Cities of Anaheim & Riverside

ML19290D534
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	01/31/1980
From:	Litvack S JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:	Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML19290D532	List: ML19290D534
References
NUDOCS 8002220131
Download: ML19290D534 (2)

Text

- ' -

-j .

U.inittb States Departntent of 3ttstitt 4 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530

.sss,.~r.r15 ca.ia t E 1 JAN ISSO

• ~r.v ause o...s.o p, Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Southern California Edison Company San Diego Gas & Electric Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Company Units 2 & 3, Dkt. Nos. 50-361A & 50-362A

Dear Mr. Shapar:

You have requested our advice pursuant to Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, in regard to a trans-fer of ownership interest in the above referenced units to the cities of Anaheim and Riverside, California ("the Cities").

Under the proposed transfer, the City of Anaheim would acquire a 1.66% interest in each of the two 1100 FM units, for a total of 36.52 MN, and the City of Riverside would acquire a 1.79% interest in each of the two units, for a total of 39.38 MW.

The Cities filed applications to participate in both the San Joaquin and Sundesert nuclear plants, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was advised by letters of November 24, 1975, and September 2, 1977, that no antitrust hearings were necessary in connection with the participation of the Cities in those plants. We also advised the Commission, by letter of February 22, 1979, that it was not necessary to conduct a hearing with respect to the Cities' participation in units 4 and 5 of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station.

k 8002220 s

Our review of the information submitted for antitrust review purposes, as well as other information available to the Department, provides no basis at this time to conclude that the participation in San Onofre units 2 and 3 by the Cities would warrant any change in our prior advice. Accord-ingly, it is the Department's view that no antitrust hearing is necessary with respect to the subject transfer of owner-ship interest.

S* cerel ,

I I

_J-- /

L to Vto

/5anf rd M,//Litvac Speci$ Assistant to the Attorney General