ML20041E483
| ML20041E483 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1982 |
| From: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-09.003, RTR-REGGD-9.003 NUDOCS 8203100607 | |
| Download: ML20041E483 (2) | |
Text
____
FEB 2 51982 RECStygg 6 =M A R 0 1 79a k E8
=4,,
1 ftr. Willian 0. Parker, Jr., Vice president Duke Power Conpany
/
s
/
422 South Church Street iG Charlotte, f! orth Carolina 28242 Re: Catawba f,'uclear Station - Duke Power Conpany's response to the Connission's Regulatory Guide 9.3
/
Dear l'r. Parker:
The Connission's Regulatory Guide 9.3 (copy attached) seeks to obtain data fron prospective operating license applicants that address changes which have occurred since the initial antitrust review at the construction permit stage. After reviewing your 9.3 data subnission, dated by accorpanying letter of l' arch 31, 1981, we would appreciate clarification of your responses to question "1.h." and question "2".
In regards to your response to question "1.h.",please state the circunstances surrounding the f! orth Carolina Utility Conmission's recomendation that Duke Power Ccopany supply power to the New River Light and Power Corpany of Boone, f! orth Carolina.
f*arcover, in response to the sane question, did the town of Minnsboro, South Carolina agree with Duke Power Company's rationale for refusing to serve the toun, i.e., "because of financial, environnental, and operating reasons"7 Is Winnsboro still interested in obtaining power or energy fron Duke Power Company?
Your response to question "2" concerning Duke Power Comoany's it'plenentation of antitrust license conditions *f does not identify how or with when 4
any arrangenents have actually been inplenented since the license conditions were nade a part of the construction pemit in 1974 If no such arrancerents have transpired, so state.
If any arrangerents'have been ireplenented or are in the process of inplenentation, please outline the nature of the transaction or agreenent and the parties involved.
l'oreover, we would appreciate it if Duke Power Co. would provide data responses to the Ccnaission's peculatory Guide 9.3 for both the North Carolina Electric l'enbership Corporation and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc. To date, we have not received any responses
)
fron either of these co-applicants. These data, from all co-applicants.
- _/ Conditions that apply to and are attached to Duke's Oconee and I'cCuire
~ a g y,mii, 7 e-..g m
OFFICE )
sURNAZE) 8203100607 820225 PDR ADOCK 05000413 oAn )
M PDR une ronu sia tio son uncu o24o OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usam %_mr,eo
7 are essential to our analysis and detemination as to whether any significant changes have occurred subsequent to the previous antitrust construction pemit review.
Sincerely, fi/.t L Totdston Argil Toalston, Acting Chief Antitrust 1. Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Dffice of f!uclear Reactor Pegulation Eaclosure:
As Stated cc: fir. Janes ff. Hubbard Executive Vice President f; orth Carolina Electric f%nbership Corp.
ffr. Henry II. Faris, President Saluda P.1ver Electric Cooperative, Inc.
DISTRIBUTION:
l Docket Files i
AEAB Reading AEAB File RVollmer DMuller AToalston WLambe Reading JRutberg NSIC TERA LPDR NRC PDR OFFICE)
SURNAME) om)
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY us e o:imi e m nac ronu sia om nacu oua