ML20052C749

Informs That Commission Has Received Addl Antitrust Advice from Atty General Re Util CP Application

ML20052C749
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/13/1982
From:	Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Ottinger R HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8205050461
Download: ML20052C749 (2)

Text

V DISTRIBUTION:

OCA (3) p -

dd y

ru n. 3a Docket File, M NRR Reading AEAB Reading APR i 31982 AEAB File JRutberg BVogler AToalston PNicholson Reading Docket Nos. 50-443A, 50-444A NSIC TERA LPDR co j NRC PDR f

)

The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger, Chaiman DMulle o

g f $@% g O Subcoamittee on Energy Conservation and Power f

kf

,4

1. 4 Comnittee on Energy and Comerce

/

Hashington, D.C.

20515 (g/ p g@y 31 United States House of Representatives j

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

V 8

h This is to infom the Subcomittee on Energy Conservation and Powe 4 m

that the Connission has received additional antitrust advice from the Attorney General in connection with Public Service Company of New Harpshire's construction pemit application for the Seabrook Nuclear Station, Units I and 2.

This advice is rendered pursuant to section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as anended.

A copy of the Attorney General's letter dated March 26, 1982, is enclosed.

In his letter he concludes:

"The Department advised the Nuclear Regulatory Connission on December 4,1973, that New Bedford's participation in the Seabrook units, along with that of a number of other small utilities in the !!cw England area, would not create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laus. Our review of the infomation submitted in connection with the current request, as well as other relevant infoma-tion, has disclosed that the proposed transfer of ownership interest from New Bedford to its sister company does not appear to present any antitrust problems that uould warrant a change in our prior advice.

Accordingly, it is the Department's view that no antitrust hearing is necessary with respect to the proposed transfer of ovnership."

Sincerely,

• /s/ A,I. mM a Argil Toalston, Acting Chief Antitrust and Economic Analys,is Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation g g' V

Enclosure:

Identical letters sent to the attached list.

Attorney General's Letter

=d d

.NER:A EAB,,,,,

,,,f.1.R,R ;AEA,B,,

,,0. LD.,

Di E

=M...

.cc:...ees...Ca.rl os. t.oo he ad.

.dkhpls.gn.;na A,Thh, ton,,,

,JRutbgr,,

,,,h,,

I I

D ler

• NNokoNoNS3 3/ 3/ /82 3/ ['/82 4/ /

/82 4/

/82

' " g' e n e n..M.......,o,,,'= wa" P DR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

O Identical Letters sent to:

The Honordble Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

20515 cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 cc:

Senator Gary Hart The Honorable Toby Moffett, Chairman Subcommittee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 cc: Rep. Joel Deckard l

i Antitrust Divisi:n Offfee of the 4suistant Atto,ney General Meshington, D.C 20330 MAR 2 61982 Guy H. Cunningham, III, Esq.

Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, Units l and 2 Public Service Company of New Hampshire NRC Docket Nos. 50-443A and 50-444A

Dear Mr. Cunningham:

You have requested our advice pursuant to Section 105(c),

of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

{ 2135(c),in regard to a transfer of ownership interest in the above-referenced units from the New Bedford Gas and Edison Light Company ("New Bedford") to the Canal Electric Company.

Under the proposed transfer, Canal Electric Company would

~

receive New Bedford's 1.34927 percent interest in'the Seabrook units, representing approximately 31 megawatts, as well as its executory rights to an additional 2.1739 percent interest in the Seabrook units, representing approximately 50 megawatts.

Both New Bedford and Canal Electric Company are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the New England Gas and Electric Association.

The Department advised the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on December 4, 1973, that New Bedford's participation in the Seabrook units, along with that of a number of other small utilities in the New England area, would not create or =aintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

Our review of the information submitted in connection with the current request, as well as other relevant information, has disclosed that the proposed transfer of ownership interest from New Bedford to its sister company does not appear to present any antitrust problems that would warrant a change in our prior advice.

Accordingly, it is the Department's view that no a@@p A

1

-e os'.

antitrust hearing is necessary with respect to the proposed transfer of ownership.

S

carely,

[L William F.

Baxter Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division l

l l

-