ML19329D184
| ML19329D184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1978 |
| From: | Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329D183 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002250884 | |
| Download: ML19329D184 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
/..%
,a v'.
o l
a
/*
- i
. e.
),,_,./ /- ','. r
- 1
/
v
~
S H Aw, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROW B RI DG E is oo
- .w. r, 9. w.
WAru ; G T O '.
- 3. C. O C 3 6 f.*
.s,,...s,-T3.,
- 3. 4 e. s e.a T ser) *4. A. B.m f t re 9
. ~
(p ;,3, 3 3 s.o c o s,. o,v.y., a.s. -
.:.o 0 - r 0 3.
or,en. m. c.r t.,:
.r.
t.-
.u 2
7'
.-.., y t,
te,N,D r,'.
s.~ o ~..J.
w t a n g
'CLE0 8*. E J
.. a.,; C -
g S ** d LOO *e
.,o.
.b
.,3 2. n. o. u, o... m w.
.=etON,
.s.o,, a.C ae G. t i.
as e,a e
~,~,
- a.... u..,..,.
g.. ; r.e. * =e u a ;.. x.
m o w,F. 4 r. t ro-~
,8*,
- m.., n..
.o. s 'e,6 STC
. ~ r ~ o..ti. ** v 71 s
s... n. r.. -..
- c. C a.
L TCLgv
.e &
~ u,.
. 2. w. 3 m -.,.t.
-3
- O -. 88 CJ J. 8.
- a.cD.mL H C iti e E /.m L* a C^
_~^~a'
- s. - c. s.u s * >
.a..cu.o.e o. e...
c.. s-.~. m. s s.r, e
0.,e-r c, -.
L. ~. r.,.F.o c. <
z, r e.2 2 s.3 F O.d*J Lt d MKfhJLQS
,s ee w.U 4 ft.
4e s..st D JOd4 88
$ *.20 4
- .'f D E.* r i c vrs &
.'.5 % E **
vs C T o sci v=. <, r.s.e. g sr
.o.
A r8
. pr p e
,3,,..;,,
e,,3,,,,,3 i
- -A*
P. D *T I O. J..
O N teLL. w re.
r m *.e.F L. G E N B.oi OW Jo.e.4 M.
'j Oo,%Sf.
J.f
. t. P r.. ~,.hrIE*e.v
,esv u. om u. s o.
- o. c.
i c netrom s. so%v s o co=or o. c.oaca r, s=.
I January 9, 1973
.....m.....e e
t
.s 4s
'?
Mr. Edson G.
Case I
0
}
Director of Nuclear D
I
)
Reactor Regulation gg i
Nuclear Regulatory Comrn, ss.lon p
3 Washington, D.
C.
20555 O
O A
L.s y d (Olj
. JL C 5
4
Dear Mr. Case:
I am in receipt of a copy of Mr. Hjelmfelt's letter
's to you of January 4, 1978, complaining on behalf of the City
}
of Cleveland
(" C ity" ) about the draft transmission services
^'
schedule that has been proposed by The Cleveland Electric 4
Illuminating Company ("CEI").
To the extent that the City has suggested that CEI
.,5 does not intend to complv with license condition 3 to the r,;
Davis-Besse and Perry licenses, as framed in the Initial De-
. "4 cision (antitrust) of the Licensing Board dated January 6, l'37'7,
<gi let me assure you that CEI has and will continue to comply with yQ that and all other antitnsat conditions attached to said y
c-. n c a. 4 -2 pronontl/ ! ram-d or a :. ha raa f a r : c-1: ! i c Tho IQs
, 2.. ::a: t : : ann:n an:.;n wrv: :m unmiulo
- a e.:en cis::nnce W
haa t.en = ace dces not suggeat otners:ne.
- u That schedule is, of ceurse, still
..ler rensideration as to certain language which has been succested by the City.
.s O
While CEI contemplates, and has so advised the City orally and in writing,that a transmission services schedule will be filed f.
with FERC in the near future in essentially the same, but not the identical, form oricinall.y.orocosed by CCI, that filing U
has not yet been made.
Mr. Hjelmfelt's letter is therefore clearly premature and in any event most likely misdirected.
If the City should be dissatisfied with the schedule that is filed, it can at that time raise whatever objections it may j
8002 250 $
-g.
,SH AW, PlTTM AIJ, POTTS &
.OW B RI DG E Mr. Edson G.
Case January 9, 1978 Page Two 1i have either with the liRC, or more appropriately with the FERC.
(
CEI will, of course, provide you with a copy of the transmission 4
schedule that is filed.
kTw Sincerely yours, j
L) c i s o M - u f
Wm. Bradford Reynolds 7
Counsel for The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company WBR:ats cc: Counsel of record Jack M.
Schulman Robert D.
Hart David C.
Hjelmfelt 9
i4 h
'D b M
]
hwK
- t mq y-b RI 33. ]T
~'
l b
L a
-i A.
The earliest date for-the completion of the facility'is April 1, 1981, and the latest date for completion is December 31, 1982.
The facility shall be constructed and located at the site as
- ts.
]
described in the application, in Lake County, Chio.
C.
This construction permit authorizes the Applicants to construct the facility described in the application and the hearing record, in accordance with the principal architectural and engineering criteria and environmental protection coamita.ents set forth therein.
The Applicants are subject to the following antitrust conditions:
l D. -
The following " definitions" and " licensing conditions" were ordered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over the combined Davis-Besse 1, 2, 3 and Perry 1 and 2 antitrus h hearings, and are in the words of the Licensing BoardAfie word N
~
I
/~""Epp1E5nts" r'iif55 t5 tileTiiis~ companies Tisted'id$aragraph 1.B. abov/e.
( v ~ _ _.__.
~ _ Definitions I
Entity shall mean any electric generation and/or distribution system or municipality or cooperative with a statutory right or privilege to engage in either 'of these functions.
i
>h8 i
Wheeling shall mean transportation of electricity by a utility over its lines for another utility, including the receipt from 0y and delivery to another system of like amounts but not neces-l sarily the same energy. Federal Power Cornuission, The 1970 Mational Power Survey, Part 1, p.1-24-8.
e f
Licensing Conditions l
(1) Applicants shall not condition the sale or exchange of I
electric energy or the grant or sale of bulk power services upon the condition that any other entity:
(a) enter into any agreement or understanding restricting the use of or alienation of such energy or services to any customers or territories; (b) enter into any agreement or understanding requiring the l
receiving entity to give up any 9ther bulk power service
.l options or alternatives or to deny itself any market opportunities; (c) withdraw any petition to intervene or forego participation
-in any proceeding before the Nuclear Regulatory Ccxmission or refrain from instigating or prosecuting any antitrust action in any other forum.
D P9M ooi b
p
- i (2) Applicants, and each of thein, shall offer interconnections upon reasonable terms and cc:.ditions at tha request of any other electric entity (ies) in the CCCT (Coichined CAPCO Cor.tpany Terr itor ies), such interconnection to be available (with due regard for any necessary and applicabla safety procedures) for operation in a closm!-switch synchronous operating mode if requested by the interconnecting entity (ies). Ownership of transmission 1ines and switching stations associated with such interconnection shall re;aain in the hands of the party funding the interconnection subject howver to any necessary safety procedures relating to disconnection facilities at the point of power delivery. Such 1 imitations on ownership shall be the least necessary to achieve reasonable safety practices ar.d shall not sarve to deprive purchasing entities of a means to effect additional bulk service options.
( 3) Applicants shall engage in wheling for and at the request of other entities in the CCCT:
(a) of electric energy from delivery points of Applicants to th9 entity (ies); and, (b) of powar generated by or available to the other entity, as a result of its ownership or entitlements 6 in generating facilities, to delivery points of Applicants designated by the other entity.
Such wheeling services shall be available with respect to any unused capacity on the transmission 1ines of Applicants, the use of which will not jeopardize Applicants' system. In the event Applicants must reduce wheeling services to other entities due to lack of capacity, such reduction shall not be effected until reductions of a least 5 parcent have been made in transmission capaci.ty allocations to other Applicants in these proceadings and thereaf ter shall be made in proportion to reductions imposed upon other Applicants to this procealing.**
" entitlement" includes but is not limited to power made available to an entity pursuant to an exchange agrescent.
- " The objective of this requirement is to prevent the pre-orapticri of unusad capacity on the lines of one Applicant by other Applicants or by entities the transmitting Applicant daems noncompritive.
Compotitive entities are to be allowed oppottunity to davelop bulk power services options even if this results in re-allocation of CAPCO (Central Area Power Coordination Group) transmission channels.
This relief is required in order to avoid proicngation of the effects of Appl icants' illegally sustained domina-ce.
D D
oo d D i S h
n)
, Applicants shal1 make reasonable provisions for disc 1osed transmission require; rents of other entities in the CCCT in planning future transmission either individually or within the CAPCO grouping. By "disclosaa" is meant the giving of reason-able advance notification of future requirements by entities utilizing wheeling services to ce mada available by Applicants.
(4)
(a) Applicants shall make available mecbarship in CAPCO to any entity in the CCCT with a system capability of 10 fM or greater; (b) A group of entities with an aggregate system capability of 10 tM or greater may obtain a single combarchip in CAPCO on a collective basis;*
(c)
Entitles applying for m+mbership in CAPCO purcuant to License Condition 4 shall become merbars subject to the terms and conditions of the CAPCO temorandum of Under-standing of September 14, 1967, and its implementing agreements; except that now marbars may elect to participate on an equal percentage of reserve basis rather than a P/N allocation formula for a period of twelve years from date of entrance.** Following the twelf th year of entrance, i
new me:rkrs shall be expected to adhere to such allocation methods as are then employal by CAPCO (subject to equal opportunity for waiver or special consideration granted to original CAPCO me:rkrs which then are in effect).
e.g., Wholesale Customar of Ohio Edison (WCOE).
Ite selection of the 12-yaar period raflects our determination that an adjustant period is necessary since the P/N formula has a recognized effect of discriminating against small systems and forcing them to forego economies of scale in generation in order to avoid carrying exc9ssive levels of reserves.
We also found that P/N is not entirely irrational as a mathod of reserve al l ocat ion. We have obsarved that Applicants themselves provided adjustment parioris and waivers to integrate certain Appi.icants into the CAPCO reserva requirement program. Tne 12-yaar pericd should permit naw entrants to avoid ini.tial discrimination but to accommodate and adjust to the CAFCO system over some reasonable paricd of t ime.
Presumably new entrants will be acquiring oanership shares and enti.tlements dur ing the 12-year period so that advers=
)
consaquences of applying the P/u formula wilI be mitigated.
mo D
D 6a O
D ~9'I l
- )]
]L o
a