ML19329D907

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards 710820 Petitioner Reply to Smud Answer to Petition for intervention,710820 Petitioner Reply to AEC Answer to Petition for Intervention & Smud 710812 Answer to Petition for Intervention.W/O Encl
ML19329D907
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 08/26/1971
From: Schur B
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Mclaren R
JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
References
NUDOCS 8004080876
Download: ML19329D907 (2)


Text

._

MTI-ynyS7 August 26, 1971

[5 ao lionorable Richard W. McLaren Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division Departtent of Justice Washington, D. C.

20024 In the !!atter of Sacramento Municipal Utility

.? strict (Pancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Unit flo.1)

Docket No. 50-312A Dcar fir. McLaren:

Pursuant to section 105 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), I am enclosing copies of the following documents filed with the Comission in the captioned proceeding:

(1)

" Petition for Intervention", dated July 2,1971, filed by the florthern California Power Agency; 4

i (2)

"AEC Regulatory Staff Answer to Petition for Intervention by i;orthern California Power Agency", dated August 12, 1971; (3)

" Answer to Petition for Intervention", dated August 12, 1971, filed by the applicant, Sacramento flunicipal Utility District; L-(4)

" Petitioner's Reply to Sacrananto's Answer to the Petition for j

Intervention", dated August 20,1971; and i

(5)

" Petitioner's Reply to AEC Regulatory Staff Answer to Petition for Intervention", dated August 20, 1971.

These documents relate to an application to the Atonic Energy Comis-l sion by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District for a license under section 104 b. of the Act to operate a nuclear poacr reactor designated j

as the P.ancho Seco !!uclear Generating Station, Unit No.1.

A section i

i l

- ~ ~ - - - - - -

~

l 1

OFTICE >

~

SURNAMC>

................ ~......

D ATE >

- ~ ~ ~ - - " -

Form AEC-318 (Rev.9 53; AECM 0240

.... ~

z Honorable Richard W. McLaren 2

104 b, construction permit for the facility was issued to Sacramento by the Cormiission on October 11, 1968, and the application for an operating license is not subject to the prelicensing antitnsst review provisions of section 105 of the Act.

The petition (item (1) above) alleges that certain contracts between the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company are in violation of the antitrust laws and that the contracts are part of a scheme or plan by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (of which Sacramento is aware) to monopolize the generation of electric energy in northern and central California through system-atic exclusion of the petitioner and other small electric distributors from participating in or in purchasing of power from nucicar plants and all other sources of bulk power in northern and central California.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Bertram H. Schur Bertram H. Schur Associate General Counsel

Enclosures:

As stated above Distribution:

Public Document Room SJRobinson - Docket AEG Central Files - Docket AAWells ABrai tran RLiedquist MG"alsch 0GC Files l

i i

i

+

i i

I f,.C.C......

omct > w alsch summe > BH5chur.:mka----

DATe > 3/.M/Z.l.......

i Ferm AEC-318 (Rev. 9-53J AECM C240 i w s mtpsvtNT PRMt**G CsFECd 19?%-437 ?SS J