ML19323B133
| ML19323B133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1980 |
| From: | Saltzman J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mcdiarmid R SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005090481 | |
| Download: ML19323B133 (1) | |
Text
fS$R m
800509o8/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS ON ki g' \\*
) y,,
g g
,*g aC W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555
}I..
3[
o, Ij-jiU APR 9 1980
%,..... #M Docket No. 50-293A Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037
Dear Mr. McDiarmid:
With reference to Boston Edison Company's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
Unit No.1, the Attorney General has furnished the Commission supplemental antitrust advice pursuant to section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
In view of your May 24, 1971 petition to intervene regarding antitrust aspects of the above-identified proceedings, a copy of the Attorney General's letter dated March 17, 1980, is enclosed for your informaticn.
Sincerely,
/sz ER0f4E SALTZf,W1 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Antitrust and Indemnity Group Office of Nucear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Attorney General's Letter e
9 Y@ fe l
~
g tillittD Statts Depx[111 tilt of 3tlStiff g00509Oh
.p.,j i
i WAsilINGTON, D.C. 20530
%g#'
) 7.. -
,30 AifdSta%T af fQaNEv Othtm AL A%tatmust DeveSIOss a
Howard V.
Shapar Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 60-293A
Dear Mr. Shapar:
By letter dated October 24, 1979, you requested that the Department of Justice
(" Department") render additional advice pursuant to Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, 42 U.S.C.
S2135c, concerning the application by the Boston Edison Company ("BECO") for a license to operate its Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
On August 2, 1971, the Department advised the then Atomic Energy Commission that allegations advanced by certain Massa-chusetts Municipals, in petitions to intervene, with respect to antitrust matters, raised substantial questions which warranted an antitrust hearing pursuant to Section 105c.
We noted at that time, however, that the competitive situation in New England was improving in that the municipal systems had gained access to some nuclear power plants and were partici-pating in the effo.-ts to form a New England power pool.
We concluded by suggesting:
It is possible that BECO and the intervenors may decide that their interests would be best served by mutual efforts to ne'~5tlEth 'a'rr'andements'to g
ensure the intervenors 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 Commission l
on the need for hearing if in light of subsequent developments the Commission should so request.
Tne petitions to intervene and our request for an antitrust hearing are still pending before the Nuclear Regulatory.
Commission.
{
=
On June 26, 1974, the Department rendered advice on Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Bnston Edison Company, et al., AEC Docket Nos. 50-471A, 50 472A, and pointed out that BECO had demonstrated a commitment to allow municipal utilities in New England to gain access to bulk power from Pilgrim Units 2 and 3 on the same basis as is available to investor-owned utilities and that this represented a significant step toward improving the compe-titive situation in New England.
The Department concluded that, therefore, an antitrust hearing would not be necessary.
The Department also noted that because negotiations between BECO and various municipal utilities for access to Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station were ongoing, we would not change our advice with respect to that nuclear unit.
On April 20, 1978, in advising the NRC regarding addi-tional applications for participation in Pilgrim Unit No.
2, the Department again concluded that no antitrust hearing would be necessary.
You have now informed us that the settlement negotia-tions between BECO and the Massachusetts Municipals have been concluded to the satisfaction of the parties and that the Massachusetts Municipals have filed a " Withdrawal of Intervention as Moot" with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
You have asked us whether, in light of that information, the Department still believes that an antitrust hearing should be held.
Since the Department rendered its advice in 1978, we have received no new information which would indicate that issuance of an operating license to Boston Edison Company would " create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws."
42 U.S.C. S105(c).
In light of this, because of the withdrawal of the Massachusetts Municipals' Petition to Intervene and ba-sed upon other information we have received, the Department is of the opinion that an antitrust hearing is no longer necessary with respect to the instant apolication._._ _,_._
nce el Sc ifor M.
L vack Assis ant Attorney General.
Antitrust Division I