ML19319C363
| ML19319C363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1978 |
| From: | Saltzman J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ciaccia J CLEVELAND, OH |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130875 | |
| Download: ML19319C363 (3) | |
Text
_
m p c7
., 7
- j-. ;,
7
. 7. m.. 3
_.w p g.n y m
. ;.p;
_ a.Z f,' j ;
4">,
'y
.t_y
' " ~ -
J[;-v..
c, w
-e 9
1 2
i
. 4
- y. --.,-
3 i
+
~
Distrib'ution ~
I PDR.
LPDR FEB g i 873 Docket Filel' EGCase JRutberg, OELD RLessy, OELD JMurray, OELD JSaltzman I
Mr. Jultas Ciaccia Director-AIG R/F I
Department of Public Utilities AToalston Reading 1201 Lakeside Avenue AIG Subject File Cleveland, Ohio ~441,14 i
{
Dear Mr. Ciaccia:
j DAVIS-BESSE AND PERRY IWCLEAR POWER PLANTS l
By letter of January 4, 1978 to Mr. Edson G. Case, your Counsel l
requested the Nuclear Regulatory Comunission to begin compliance proceedings t
pursuant to 10 CFR, i 2.202. Counsel for Cleveland Electric Illuminating 8
Co. (CEI) responded to that complaint by letter to NRC dated January 9 I
1978 and by subsequent l@rrs culminating in a TaMff filing with FERC, l
on January 27, 1978. To assist us with our review of this matter, we l
would appreciate infonnation in accordance with Enclosure A attached, by l
March 6, 1978. We are likewise requesting information from CEI and are sending you a copy of that request.
If you have any questions with i
respect to this letter, please call Mr. A:gil Toalston, area code 301-t 492-8339.
Sincerely.
4 I
f 5th.NJ. hrW e D. kaman Jerome Saltzman, Chief Antitrust & Indemnity Group Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
cc: David C. Hjelefelt, Esq.
i.
Mr. Richard A. Miller
~3' t
s.
-J,-
- c. m,
{
e
,e,
[
4 3
}
~
~
g ff. I
.c.
m,.
e.w y
,.I
}h~
1
- ../ '
y m s.
NRR?AIG -
'NRRi
' 'JLh _ __0El,M7 p' t
. omcc >
f ATobo:na N6t e J rk '
{ --
)
JSal n~
L s umm Ansc h 2/Q~[78 27p~/N~--- - ~ - - - - -
u f
- ow,g '2//6/78
- 2/
/78 NRC Form 318 (2 78) NRCM 02040 o u.'s. sovsmnusut penntens opricar 1,7e-es4-yea a
.a wa
_z
- ..n w
.a
__t
_ g.,
g o o 2130 F75 7
n y
Enclosure "A"
+
Transmission Services By letter of January 27, 1978 to FERC, CEI filed with FERC a transmission services schedule. The following questions pertain to that rate filing.
1.
What is the earliest date that the City could begin receiving PASNY power assuming that the transmission schedule was now in effect?
what is the latest date that PASNY and other involved companies will accept a request from the City for PASNY power?
2.
Once the service schedule has become effective but not necessarily approved, what additional permits, facilities and contractural arrangements are required by the City before it can begin receiving PASNY power?
3.
What is the shortest period of time (duration) and what is the longest period of time that the City could contract for PASNY power? Would the contract be with PASNY or with some other Company?
What would be the shortest notice time for terminating such a contract? What price penalty would be assessed if the City were required to terminate the contract earlier than provided for in the contract?
4.
What flexibility will the City have in scheduling PASNY power? Will the scheduled energy change from hour to hour, day to day, or season to season? If so, describe the anticipated variation. What price penalty if any will occur if receipt of PASNY power must be temporarily curtailed or interrupted?
5.
Does the City have any plans or proposals for transmission of power to or from the City other than PASNY power? If so, describe as to:
(a) when service would be expected to start b) duration of service c
parties to the transaction d
quantity of capacity or energy e
type of capacity or energy (f) points of interconnection for receipt or delivery.
6.
Does the City desire PASNY power for periods of time less than 12 months?
7.
Would the City consider taking PASNY power mder the filed service schedi.e prior to completion of hearings before FERC and/or NRC?
4r
2-
'S J-~
8.
Does the City consider the filed service schedule to be an initial rate schedule pursuant to 18 C.F.R. 5 35.l(b) or a change pursuant to 18 C.F.R. 1 35.l(c).
9.
'Would the City be receptive to ' allowing the filed schedule to become effective in accordance with 18 C.F.R 535.11 prior to the date the schedule would normally be effective?
(a) If the schedule were considered as a new rate schedule?
(b)
If the schedule were considered as a change in rate schedule?
(c) if the schedule were considered as a new rate schedule but CEI agreed to a provision allowing for refund with interest after completion of hearings?
W f
4 o
O g
9
=
e
,