ML18022A787
| ML18022A787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1990 |
| From: | Newell G NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | Mckenna E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0970, RTR-NUREG-970 A, NUDOCS 9003130270 | |
| Download: ML18022A787 (6) | |
Text
ACCELERATED DIAlUBUTIONDEMONFBWTION SYSTEM REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS) 05000400
'A b
COPIES LTTR'NCL.
,1 1
1 1
REC1PIENT ID CODE/NAME PD2-1 'LA.
BECKER,D COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
0 1
0 RECIPIENT
'ID CODE/NAME DRP/ADR-',2 PD2-1 PD ACCESSION NBR:9003130270 DOC.DATE: 90/02/23 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Carolina 05000400$
AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION NEWELL;G.J.
North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency NEWELL,G.J.
Spiegel 6 McDiarmid RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION R
MCKENNA,E.
'rogram Management, Policy Development
& Analysis Staff (P
.I
SUBJECT:
Responds to 900122 ltr re request for initiation of informal complaint procedures under 10CFR5.3.2,NUREG-0970.
D DISTRIBUTION CODE:
Z999D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR I
ENCL 8 'IZE:
TITLE: Antitrust, Information
~ S k
i
~
NOTES:Application for permit renewal filed.
EXTERNAL: LPDR 1
1 INTERNAL: NRR/PMAS/PTSB12 1
1 OGC/AD 15-B-18 3
.3 NUDOC RE Pl*9 NRC PDR 1
1 1
1 1
1
'A NOIR TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASIEI CONTACT THE.DOCUMENI'ONTROLDESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAMEFROM DISIRIBUTION LISIS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 12 ENCL 10 Vi S
'h S
/
i(
~ v
'C
, ~
GEORGE SPIEGEL PC ROBERT C MCDIARMID SANDRAJ. STREBKL ROBERT A.JABLON JAMES N HORWOOD ALANJ ROTH FRANCES KI FRANCIS DANIELI, DAVIDSON PETER K MATT DAVIDR. STRAUS BONNIE S. BLAIR THOMAS C. TRAUGER JOHN J CORBKTT CYNTHIAS. BOGORAD GARYJ NEWELL MARC R. POIRIER RICHARDA BROWN JOSEPH VAN EATON RENA I, STEINZOR P. DANIELBRUNER SCOTT HI STRAUSS OF OCNINCCL I SPENCER I KIMBALL SPIEGEL 4 M(:D1A8 M I D I350 NEW YORK AVENUE N W WASHINGTON 0 C 20005 47&8 TELEPHONE (202I 879 4000 TELECOPIER I202) 879 400l T E LE CO PIE R I 202) 879 409 I February 23, 1990 BEN FINKELSTEIN DONAIJ7 WKIGHTMAN MARGARETA MOGOLDRICK BARBARAS KSBIN MARTINS PUTNAM SUSAN M BERNARD DIANE H LAUTRUP JEFFREY R, BABBIN DAVIDKOLKER USA G DOWDEN WILIJAMS. HUANG RISK J PETERS PETER J. HOPKINS NANCY R, PAGE RUSSELL F. SMITH. m KODWO GHARTEY.TAGOK c P. DAVIDLOPEZ F MARKFI BADALAMENTE A DAVIDK. POMPKR A JOSHUA KATZ NCNCCF OF YIIICOONLINOAF ONLY F NCNCCF Or FCNNCYLYANIAOAF ONLY NCN QCN Or NICNIOAN CA% ONLY A NCNCCN OF NAALACNVCCYYCCAN ONI Y Ms. Eileen McKenna Acting Chief Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
$00/
RE: Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Unit 1Request for Initiation of Informal Complaint Procedures Under Section 5.3.2 NUREG-0970
Dear Ms. McKenna:
This is in response to your letter of January 22,
- 1990, which followed up on my telephone conversation with Mr. William Lambe in December, 1989.
North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency ("Power Agency) furnishes the following information in response to your letter.
1.
You have asked that Power Agency provide a written summary of the issues that are not being addressed in the arbitration proceeding between Power Agency and Carolina Power Light Company
( CP&L ) that Power Agency believes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should consider.
Broadly speaking, the dispute that is the subject of the arbitration proceeding involves Power Agency's right to purchase and use power from suppliers other than CP&L to meet a
portion of Power Agency's power supply requirements.
Power Agency believes that CP&L xs asserting an unjustified and unsupported interpretation of a 1981 power coordination agreement with Power Agency (the <<1981 PCA<<) that would prevent Power Agency from making the most effective use of power supply resources available to it from other suppliers.
The effect of 9003130270 I700223 PDR ADOCK 05000400
=PIC.,
i0
1
'h lh
Ms. Eileen McKenna February 23, 1990 Page 2
CP&L's interpretation is to obstruct Power Agency's access to and use of alternative power supplies, thereby foreclosing a share of competition in the regional bulk power market.
Power Agency believes that CP&L's position abrogates Power Agency's rights to make effective use of alternative power supply resources.
Contrary to CP&L's claim, Power Agency did not relinquish those rights in entering into the 1981 PCA; rather, Power Agency intended that such rights would be preserved.
CP&L's assertion that Power Agency's rights to use alternative power supplies are limited by the 1981 PCA thus violates the language and intent of that agreement.
The fundamental issue currently before the Arbitrator is the degree to which CP&L's position is supported or permitted by the 1981 PCA.
Power Agency submits, however, that CP&L's conduct also violates Commitment No.
4 included in the antitrust license conditions for the Harris Plant.
In that commitment, CP&L agreed "to facilitate the exchange of bulk power by transmission over its system between or among two or more entities with which it is interconnected....
Power Agency may seek to introduce evidence in the arbitration proceeding showing that CP&L's interpretation of the 1981 PCA would violate Power Agency's rights to obtain power from alternate suppliers, and showing that CP&L's interpretation would restrict competition xn the bulk power markets.
Power Agency may argue that, if the Arbitrator finds the applicable contract provisions to be ambiguous, he should resolve the ambiguity in a way that preserves Power Agency's rights and promotes public policies favoring competitxon.
In that connection, Power Agency may cite the Harris Plant license conditions as one source of Power Agency's rights to obtain power from suppliers other than CP&L.
Power Agency may also rely upon the Harris Plant license conditions as support for its view that CP&L's conduct. violates policies and commitments that are intended to enhance competition.
Power Agency believes that CP&L may seek to exclude such evidence and arguments from the arbitration proceeding.
If CP&L were to succeed in doing so, then the inconsistency between CP&L's conduct and License Commitment No.
4 would not be included in the arbitration proceeding.
Power Agency continues to believe that the NRC has an independent regulatory duty to investigate and remedy conduct that violates the Harris Plant antitrust license conditions.
This duty exists even when that conduct may also violate contractual provisions that are currently the subject of an arbitration proceeding.
- Moreover, even zf the conduct that is the subject of Power Agency's request for informal complaint procedures were found to be permitted by the 1981 PCA, such conduct nevertheless may violate the policies underlying the Harris Plant license conditions and the obligations imposed thereunder.
Power Agency's position in this regard is stated more fully at, page 4 of my May 5, 1989 letter to Dr. Thomas Murley.
Ms. Eileen McKenna February 23, 1990 Page 3
2.
Your letter also requests a monthly update of the status of the arbitration proceeding.
The parties have essentially completed discovery procedures.
The evidentiary hearing is currently scheduled to begin on March 12, 1990 (although CP&L and Power Agency have agreed to a two-day extension of that date).
We shall be happy to provide further status reports on a monthly basis.
In the meantime, if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
ary
. Newell Attorney for North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency chic ceo Mr. William G. Wemhoff Mr. Michael S. Colo Mr. Bobby Montague Mr. George A. Avery