ML19329C941
| ML19329C941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1974 |
| From: | Mansfield D, Reynolds W OHIO EDISON CO., PENNSYLVANIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200914 | |
| Download: ML19329C941 (17) | |
Text
,, _. _
1.. .
December 2, 1974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
), ~ . ~" ~,
In the Matter of i'
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
COMPANY )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50 lh6A Unit 1) ) pT-440A
) 50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
JOINT ANSWERS OF OHIO EDISON COMPANY AND PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY TO THE INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS SERVED UPON THEM BY THE OTHER PARTIES
, Pursuant to Section 2 740 of the Commission's Re-structured Rules of Practice, Ohio' Edison Company and Penn-sylvania Power Company submit the following j oint responses (a) to Interrogatories 1 through 5, as jointly propounded by the AEC Regulatory Staff and the Department of Justice, and Interrogatory No. 1, as separately propounded by the Department of Justice, all as adopted by reference by the City of Cleve-land, and (b) to the requests of the other parties for pro-duction of documents in the possession, custody and control q of Ohio Edison Company and/or Pennsylvania Power Company.
b i L ggQ2 200 fy s ,L ,
a
~
A. Interrogatories Joint Interrogatory No. 1:
- l. Designate and identify by electric utility on a large scale geographic map:
- a. Each of Company's delivery points for wholesale power; i
-b. The location of each generating plant of Company and a designation of each plant's MW capacity;
- c. Each interconnection point between your Company and other electric utilities.
Answer:
A large scale geographic map showing the in-formation requested in Joint Interrogatory No. 1 is attached hereto. ,
l 1
Joint Interrogatory No. 2: 1
- 2. Define the geographic and product markets and submarkets upon which Company intends to rely as the relevant markets in this proceeding:
- a. As to each product market and sub-market listed in response to this question, identify and describe each factor considered in deter-mining that it is an appropriate product market or submarket for 3
antitrust analysis in this proceeding; b.- Define the geographic boundaries i I
which are relevant for each such
- product market and indicate such boundaries on a large scale map;
- c. State specifically the factors used j in defining the boundaries in each
. _ _ L .. .-. _ ._
, .- .. . ~ . , .
area described and delineated in 2.b., and describe each factor considered in determining that it is an appropriate geographic market or submarket for antitrust analysis in the proceeding.
Answer:
Chio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company are unable at this time to define the geographic and product markets and submarkets upon which they intend to rely as the relevant markets in this proceeding. As soon as Ohio Edison Company and Fennsylvania Power Company have formulated the po-sition that they intend to take herein regarding the matter of relevant markets and submarkets, they will so advise the AEC Regulatory Staff, the Department of Justice and the City of Cleveland, providing at that time the information requested in Joint Interrogatory No. 2.
Joint Interrogatory Nc. 3:
- 3. Since September 1, 1965,has Company i ever transmitted electric power through its !
system for any electric utility engaged in j the utilization, sale or further transmission i of that power? If-so, describe each situa- '
tion stating (a) the parties involved, (b) I the time period involved, (c) the amount of energy in MWHRS involved annually, (d) the reasons for the transmission, and (e) the date of and signatories to any agreements relating to each such situation.
Answer:
No.
l l
1
Joint Interrogatory No. 4:
- 4. Since September 1, 1965, has Company refused any request to transmit electric power in the manner described above in interrogatory three? If so, describe each such request by (a) the date of the request, (b) the party making the request, (c) the supplying and re-ceiving parties, (d) the requested transmission route, (e) the amount of power involved, (f) the time period involved, (g) the reasons for Ccmpany's decision with regard to this request, and (h) the identity by date, author (s) and subject matter of any documents relating thereto.
Answer:
No.
Joint Interrogatory No. 5:
5 Since September 1, 1965, has Company used the transmission facilities of any other electric utility to transmit electric power?
If so, describe each situation, stating (a) the parties involved, (b) the time period in-volved, (c) the amount of energy in MWERS in-volved annually, (d) the reasons for the trans-mission, and (e) the date of and signatories to any agreements relating to each such situ-ation.
Answer:
No.
DOJ Interrogatory No. 1:
- 1. State each request since September 1, l 1965, made by an electric utility to Company for a new or altered interconnection arrange-ment, giving (a) the name of the entity, (b) the date of the request, (c) the date of any !
I agreement to interconnect, (d) the reason for any refusal to interconnect, and (e) the date and author (s) of any document relating to any )
such refusal. i i
l i
Answer:
The following requests for a new or altered interconnection arrangement were'made since September 1, 1965, by an electric utility to Ohio Edison Company and/or Penn-sylvania Power Company:
A. City of Orrville In 1965, the City of Orrville indicated an in-terest in an interconnection for the purpose of controlling its frequency. Ohio Edison Company offered to provide such service but its offer was not accepted, presumably because of the cost required to construct the necessary facilities. In 1969, the City of Orrville re-quested a connection for emergency power to be supplied during flooding of the City's gener-ating plant on July 5, 1969 This request was granted. In 1970,the City asked for the cost for "non-connected service availability" for certain loads on their system. The standard municipal rate was offered to the City and they took no further action at that time. On April 24, 1973, the City requested a meeting to dis-cuss a synchronous intertie so they could become a contributing member to any power pool with their generating capacity and stating that they were making the same request of Ohio Power Com-pany. A meeting was held in June 1973, an ensi-neering study was made and we replied in August 1973, stating the conditions under which we could provide such service. In December 1973, the City requested a 23 kV interconneciton with a capability of 2500 to 3000 kVA for an " interim period" of the next one or two or two and one-half years for the purpose of providing backup service to an industrial customer soon to be served by Orrville while they evaluate proposals from Ohio Edison Company and Ohio Power Company to furnish a 138 kV synchronous tie with Orrville.
On February 7, 1974, a proposed contract for such services was presented to a representative of the City of Orrville. On June 13, 1974, an article l
l
appeared in The Courier Cresent stating that "an agreement has been reached which '
will allow Orrville to connect its power plant to Ohio Power Company's system." Be-cause the Company has received no response from the City of Orrv111e, the Company has requested notification as to whether the City of Orrv111e is still interested in the proposed service.
On November 11,1974, the Ohio Energy Com-mission (OEEC) contacted the Company requesting information on whether the Company would be in a position to interconnect and provide electric energy to the City of Orrville during the coal strike. The Company advised the OEEC that present conditions would permit the Com-pany to provide up to 2500 kVA to the City of Orrville. This could be accomplished by replacing some taps and closing in a 23 kV line switch to energize the transformer capacity of the City of Orrville. In order to affect this intercon-nection, the City was to contact the Company so that arrangements could be made for closing the interconnection and for arriving at a proper method of payment for the energy. On November 19, 1974, the City advised Ohio Edison Company that it was no longer interested in the offer.
B. City of Oberlin The City of Oberlin indicated an interest in an interconnection in 1970, and Ohio Edison Company expressed its willingness to make such an interconnection. On March 20, 1970, the City and the Company entered into an agreement under which the Company provided an interconnection for the purpose of selling energy at wholesale to supplement energy generated by Oberlin's own facilities. At the time of the centract, service at 69 kV was contemplated, but delays in con-struction of facilities to take service at 69 kV led to service being supplied temporarily by the Company at 12 5 kV until June 1, 1971. Service at 69 kV is provided pursuant to FPC Rate Schedule No. 73. The service at 12 5 kV was supplied under FPC Rate Schedule No. 73 1. Service to Oberlin i
i l
l' l
[
i
presently being provided under the Com-pany's standard rate schedule for municipal resale service transmission voltage effec-tive September 1, 1972, pursuant to Federal Power Commission letter of acceptance dated November 28, 1973, in Docket No. E-7705 In letters dated March 8, 1974 and May 7, 1974, the City requested information con-cerning the Company's requirements for the Oberlin Power Plant to operate in parallel with the Company's cystem. After meetings on September 13, 1974 and October 12, 1974, the Company advised the City on October 21, 1974 of four facility modifications required for such operations. Representatives of the City are presently evaluating these requirements.
C. City of Norwalk The City of Norwalk indicated an interest in an interconnection and discussions were held between Ohio Edison Company and the City on the subject from time to time during the period mid-1969 to late 1971. During that period, on July 7, 1969, emergency power was supplied by the Company to the City during flooding of the City's generating plant. The discussions referred to above concerned possible purchase by the City of all or part of its requirements and possible sale of the City's electric system to the Company. The Company expressed its will-ingness to consider any of these alternatives.
On February 6, 1970, the City and the Company entered into an agreement under which the Com-pany agreed to provide energy to supplement power generated by the City. Service commenced under that agreement on March 2, 1970, but the agreement was cancelled by the City on May 6, 1970. Subsequently on April 14, 1971, a new agreement for sale of energy by the Company to supplement energy generated by the City was entered into. Service was first supplied under FPC Rate Schedule No. 72. Council of the City ultimately decided to sell its system to the Company, and an agreement therefor was made on March 18, 1972. On September 22, 1972, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved the Company's application to acquire the City's
- . =-
- . electric system. The acquisition was con-summated on October 31, 1972.
D. Village of Hiram From time to time the Village of Hiram in-dicated an interest in an interconnection and on March 12, 1971, the Village asked the Company to make proposals respecting possible purchase by the Village of all or part of its requirements and possible sale of the Vil-lage's electric system to the Company. The Company made proposals respecting each of these alternatives.
Council of the City ultimately decided to sell its system to the Company, and an agree-ment therefor was made on January 27, 1972.
The Company's application for authority to acquire the system was approved on January 5, 1973 by order of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Acquisition was consummated on January 31, 1973 E. City of East Palestine In March, 1972, the City of East Palestine, i
through its consulting engineer, requested a proposal from Ohio Edison Company to supply a 69 kV service connection at the northeast corner of its corporate limits sufficient to accommodate a normal system load of 6000 kW.
In July, 1972, Company representatives con-tacted certain City officials and informed them that Ohio Edison Company is willing to construct the necessary 69 kV facilities from its system to the northeast corner of East
- Palestine at no cost to the municipality. ,
They were informed at that time that the Com-pany would begin planning and constructing upon i receipt of a contract for service. The munic- ;
ipality has the matter under consideration ac this. time.
In January of 1973, the City requested the l Company to examine the municipal plant and l
- distribution system and make a proposal to l
_9_
the City for its purchase. In June,the Company submitted its proposal to the City for the entire electric system of the City of East Palestine. This pro-posal is under consideration by the City at this time.
F. Rural Electric Cocoeratives Prior to August 1, 1970, the Company supplied service at wholesale to seven Rural Electric Cooperatives under FPC Rate Schedules 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 and supplements thereto. Since 1960, and prior to the effective date of the agree-ment with Ohio Power Company referred to below, eight requests were made for ad-ditional delivery points: two for Marion Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., which were complied with; two from Lorain-Medina Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., which were complied with, (a third request was made but was subsequently withdrawn); two for Firelands Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., one of which was established in 1972 and the second of which was established in 1973; and one from Holmes-Wayne Electric Cooperative, Inc., which was complied with.
Under an agreement dated June 20, 1968, however, tetween the Company and Ohio Power Company, provision was made for purchase of power by the Company from Ohio Power Company beginning in 1970 and sale of power to Ohio Power Company at delivery points supplying the Ccmpany's former cooperative customers. Five requests for the establish-ment of additional delivery points under that agreement for service for ultimate use by Delaware Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Lorain-Medina Rural Electric Cooperative,.
Inc., Morrow Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Licking Rural Electrification, Inc., and North Central Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
are under consideration by the Company and Ohio Power Company.
G. Borough of Grove City j
.Since 1960 one request was received by Penn- ;
sylvania Power Company frcm the Bcrough of ;
1 l
l l
i
~
l Greve City, Mercer County, Pennsylvania, for the supply of bulk power at whole-sale, and it was granted. A connection was made and on October 7, 1967, the Borough began receiving service as a municipal resale customer under Pennsyl-vania Power Company's FPC Rate Schedule ENo. 19 H. Borough of Ellwood City, Grove City, New Wilmington, Wampum and Zeliencole In a current rate proceeding before the Federal Power Commission (E-8159) in-volving Pennsylvania Power, the Intervenors 4 have taken the position that the Company should be required to file a rate' schedule for 69 kV service, notwithstanding testimony by witness to the fact that none of the Boroughs are presently equipped to take or receive 69 kV service, or has any specific plans to do so at the moment.
The Company has stated on the record that if, as, and when any of such Boroughs is physically prepared to take or receive service at 69 kV and to contract with Com-pany for such service, the Company will file the appropriate rate, under the rules and regulations of the Federal Power Commission and subject to, of course, review of that Commission.
I. Ohio Valley Electric Ccmpany Pursuant to an agreement of April 1, 1965, known as Modification No. 2 to the First Supplementary Transmission Agreement between Ohio Valley Electric Company and various other companies including Ohio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company, Ohio Edison Company has established an interconnection at Dayton Power _and Light. Company's Greene Substation (operated and maintained by
' Dayton at Ohio Edison's expense) and has established an interconnection between Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company's Delaware Substation and Ohio Edison's Tangy
A Substation operated and maintained by Ohio Edison at its own expense. The agreement is filed with the Federal Power Commission as. Ohio Edison Company's FPC No. 12.7.
J. West Penn Power Company Pursuant to an agreement of April 23, 1965, between Pennsylvania Power Company and West Penn Power Company, Pennsylvania Power Company has established two inter-connections with West Penn at Krendale and Keister Substations in Pennsylvania.
K. Monongahela Power Compgn1 Pursuant to an agreement of April 4, 1967, between Ohio Edison Company and Ohio Power Company and Mononganela Power Com-pany, Ohio Edison has established three interconnections with Ohio Power at Galion, South Canton and Canton Central Substations in Ohio and one interconnection with Monongahela Power at Wylie Ridge Substation in West Virginia.
L. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Pursuant to an agreement dated March 21, 1972, between Ohio Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, an inter-connection has been established between Ohio Edison's Hanna Substation and Cleveland Electric Illuminating's Juniper-Canton Central line.
M. Wholesale Customers of Ohio Edison On November 27, 1972, American Municipal Power-Ohio Inc. (AMPO) inquired as to the Company's willingness to discuss ~ participation 1
in matters relating to bulk power supply.
The Company has indicated by letter its will-ingness to discuss these matters. It has previously agreed with the municipalities !
to which it sells power at wholesale to
(
discuss and explore similar matters with those municipalities. On October 16, 1974, a meeting was held between Ohio Edison and the municipalities at which time a comprehensive outline was established of engineering, economic and legal studies directed toward the implementation of the general objectives of the agreement to discuss and explore participation. Each of the parties is presently collecting data and information for such studies with a meeting tenta- _3,,
tively scheduled for N::: ber, 1974. r, "
au w.y a .
N. City of Newton Falls From time'to time, the City of Newton Falls has indicated some interest in an inter-connection arrangement with Ohio Edison.
On September 5, 1973, the City Council directed the City Manager "to continue to get facts, figures, and terms" from Ohio Edison regarding a tie-in with their municipal electric system. On January 24, 1974, Ohio Edison replied by offering to supply'69 kV subtransmission loop service.
Pursuant to such offer, a formal contract was presented to the City on October 28, 1974 At this time, the contract is being evaluated by the City and its consultants.
- 0. City of Niles On March 28, 1974, the City requested ad-ditional electric service through a new metering point to be located at a mutually agreeable site on the Company's 23 kV Niles-Meander Line. A contract was executed on April 8,, 1974 for the new 23 kV delivery point and service was cctmenced on August 11, 1974 Both parties are presently evaluating the possibilities of the Company serving a new 138 kV substation.
~
B. Document Requests The Ohio Edison Company and the Pennsylvania Power Company have made available for inspection and copy-ing all documents requested to be produced by the AEC Regu-latory Staff, the Department of Justice'and the City of Cleveland, except for those documents which the Licensing Board has ruled need not be produced, and those documents
! -which Chio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company intend to withhold from production because they contain privileged and/or confidential matter entitled to special protection. Most of the documents produced are located in the offices of the Ohio Edison Company, 47 North Main Street, Akron, Ohio; access to this material can be arranged through Thomas A. Kayuha, Esquire, of Ohio Edison. The remaining documents produced are located at the offices of Pennsylvania Pcwer Company, 1 East Washington Street, New Castle, Penn-sylvania; access to this material can be arranged through J. R. Edgerly of Pennsylvania Power Company.
I m,-. . ., _ . _ ,. ..
Decembnr , 1974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
COMPANY )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Unit 1) ) 50-440A
) 50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
AFFIRMATIONS I, D. Bruce Mansfield, am President of Ohio Edison Company and Chairman of the Board of Pennsylvania Power Company and hereby affirm that the Responses of the Companies to Joint Interrogatories No. 1 and Nos. 3-5 of the AEC Regulatory Staff and the U.S. Department of Justice, and to the separate Inter-rogatory No. 1 of the U.S. Department of Justice, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
>/% ' .s . .i .
D. Bruce Mansfield WITNESS my hand and notorial seal.
. w-
!.!: t-' yt .(. ,
q ,, - . ..
i
._....j
. r , - :.. , - . ,
W:== -- .- . .: . . . , a I, Wm. Bradford Reynolds, am counsel for Ohio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company and hereby affirm that the Response of the Companies to Joint Interrogatory No. 2 of the AEC Regulatory Staff and the U.S. Department of Justice is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
- k. ,. b ,.4(~ A w l.
Wm. Bradford Reynoilds l WITNESS my hand and notorial seal.
J a" . .-
~
9%, . ,
l u.? ===aa# m ,u.=. m
(
m A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
COMPANY )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Unit 1) ) 50-440A
) 50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Joint Answers of Ohio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company to the Interrogatories and Docament Requests Served Upon Them by the Other Parties" were served upon each of the persons listed on the attached Service List by U. S.
Mail, postage prepaid, on this 16th day of December, 1974.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
> m By kSm D w A k J _t b 4 -
Wm. BradfordNReynolds l
Counsel for Applicants Dated: December 16, 1974.
? I l
l l
! I
- +
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of .)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )~
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) -
ILLUMINATING COMPANY )
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Station, Unit 1) ) 50-440A
) 50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC )
ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. )
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2) ) -
SERVICE LIST, John B. Farmakides, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stechens Chairman Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 1J. S. Atomic Energy Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C. 20545 John H. Brebbia, Esq. Benj amin H. Vogler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of General Counsel Alston, Miller & Gaines Regulation 1776 K Street, N.W., U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20006 Washington, D. C. 20545 Douglas V. Rigler, Esq. Robert J. Verdisco, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of General Counsel Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh Regulation and.Jacobs U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Schanin Building Washington, D. C. 20545
'815 Connecticut-Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
~
Andrew F. Popper, Esq.
Office of General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Regulation Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C. 20545 -
a
, , . ~ . . .
- , g Joseph J. Saunders,.Esq. Leslie Henry, Esq.
Steven Charno, Esq. Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder Antitrust Division 300 Madison Avenue Department of Justice Toledo, Ohio 43604 Washington, D. C. 20530 Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq.
Melvin G. Berger, Esq. Ohio Edison Company Antitrust Division 47 North Main Street Department of Justice Akron, Ohio 44303 Washington, D. C. 20530 Thomas J. Munsch, Esq.
l Reuben Goldberg, Esq. Gen.eral Attorney 4
David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq. Duquesne Light Company
- 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 435 Sixth Avenue Washington, D. C. 20006 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
- Frank R. Clokey, Esq. David Olds, Esq. .
j Special Assistant Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay
! Attorney General Union Trust Building Room 219 Box 2009 Towne' House Apartments Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 John Lansdale, Esq.
Mr. Raymond Kudukis Cox, Langford & Brown Director vf ULillLles '
21 Dupont circle, N.W.
City of Cleveland Washington, D. C. 20036 ,
1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.
Jon T. Brown, Esq.
Herbert R. Whiting, Director Duncan, Brown & Palmer Robert D. Hart, Esq.
- 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. , N.W. I Department of Law Washington, D. C. 20006 1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 4411'4 Dwight C. Pettay, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General John C. Engle, President Chief, Antitrust Section AMP-0, Inc. 30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor i Municipal Building Columbus, Ohio 43215 20 High Street l Hamilton, Ohio 45012 Deborah Pcvell Highsmith, Esq. l Assistant Attorney General '
Donald H. Hauser, Esq. Antitrust Section l Managing Attorney 30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor The Cleveland Electric Columbus, Ohio 43215 Illuminating Company 55 Public Square Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Law Section 361 East Broad Street, 8th Floor Co. lumbus, Ohio 43215
- .- - - - - _ - -