ML19309H017

Responds to NRC 791024 Request for Addl Advice Per Atomic Energy Act of 1954,Section 105C,re Facility Ol.Antitrust Hearing Re Instant Application No Longer Necessary

ML19309H017
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	03/17/1980
From:	Litrack S JUSTICE, DEPT. OF, ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF
To:	Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML19309H010	List: ML19309H017
References
NUDOCS 8005080159
Download: ML19309H017 (2)

Text

.

.. 80eoseisq N ? *, /kC,' Mgttttb 4tatts Depar[Hitut CI 3HStif f WAsinNGT ON, D.C. 20530

. Q ./ 17 " - 20 altisf a%Y af f 0n%g y ct%tmat ahisThulf OtvaliO8e 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 cystems had gained access to some nuclear powGr plants and were partici-pating in the efforts 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 l by mutual efforts to ned5Eilte arrangements to

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

l ensure the intervenors reasonable access to low-cost power, and that a hearing might thereby be rendered unlecessary. We would of course be pleased to grovide further advice to the Commission on the need for hearing if in light of subsequent developments the Commission should so request.

The petitions to intervene and our request for an antitrust hearing are still pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

l l

I

s A o on June 26, 1974, the Department rendered advice on Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Boston 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 investcr-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-2, tional applications for participation in Pilgrim Unit No.

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 i

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 based 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 ',

I i S<ifor M. L vack Assis ant Attorney General Antitrust Division i