ML19339B604

Advises That No Basis Exists to Conclude That Participation in Unit 1 by Nc Electric Membership Corp & Saluda River Electric Cooperative Constitutes Violation of Antitrust Laws.No Hearing Re Transfer of Ownership Necessary

ML19339B604
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	10/29/1980
From:	Litvack S JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:	Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8011070316
Download: ML19339B604 (2)

Text

s JO' P.inittb Starts Department of hstitt A

(p W ASIHNGTON. D.C. 20530 2 9 0CT 1980

........,1o.... u..

.t 31

......u.,.....,o 7,. 3...y.,, _ _, _

~'

D/;cE3 Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 NRC Docket Nos. 50-413A and 50-414A D'sr Mr. Shapar:

You have requested our advice pursuant to Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in connection with the purchase of ownership interests in Duke Power Company's (Duke) Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 by North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCMEC) and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative (Saluda River).

Duke's participation in the above captioned nuclear units l

was the subject of an antitrust review conducted by the Department of Justice (Department) in 1973.

As a result of that review, the Department recommended that a hearing be held to determine whether Duke's proposed activities under the subject license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. Because Duke was willing to have certain conditions attached to its license for the Catawba plant, the Department recommended that the antitrust proceeding it had initiated be terminated.

The sale of 75%

ownership in Unit 1 (56.25% to NCMEC, and 18.75% to Saluda River) was the result of the discussions between Duke and the cooperative systems in its service area that occurred after the cessation of those proceedings.

Our review of the information schmitted for antitrust review purposes, including responses to our requests for relevant data from over seventy neighboring electric systems, provides no basis at this time to conclude that the participation in the Catawba Station, Unit 1, by NCMEC and 2M7 s

lO 8011070 3/F g

l Saluda River would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

Accordingly, it is the DJpartment's view that no antitrust hearing is necessary with respect to the subject transfer of ownership interests.

fac

ely, L

nfor M.

tvack Assi tant ttorney General Antit ust Division i

J i

W

. - -..