ML20045G591
| ML20045G591 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1993 |
| From: | Grant G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Liebowitz J GULF STATES UTILITIES CO., MILLER, BALIS & O'NEIL |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307140167 | |
| Download: ML20045G591 (4) | |
Text
.
>$ Wic o,
UNITED STATES 8
g' /,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
nE WASHINGTON, D. C,20555 k....+
July 7,1993 Jonathan S. Liebowitz, Esq.
Miller, Balis & 0'Neil, P.C.
1101 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 1400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Re: Gulf States Utilities Company; River Bend Station, Docket No. 50-458:
Proposed Transfer of Ownership of River Bend Station from Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU) to Entergy Corporation (Entergy)
Dear Mr. Liebowitz:
In connection with the comments you submitted regarding the proposed transfer of control of ownership of the River Bend Station, please provide a response from your client, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., to the following by July 22, 1993:
1)
In the FERC " Order Accepting Rate Schedules, Accepting Amendment to Power Agreement, Conditionally Accepting Transmission Tariff With Modifications, Conditionally Accepting Service Agreements, Granting Waiver of Notice, and Denying Motion to Update Market Power Analysis", dated April 5, 1993, 63 F.E.R.C.
Paragraph 61,025, the FERC urged the Entergy customers (and the NRC staff presumes GSU's customers as well subsequent to the merger) who are eligible for certain benefits perceived to be broader than what is termed " point-to-point" transmission service over the Entergy system, to approach the FERC with specific objections in the context of a request to amend or approve a service contract with Entergy Corporation.
Would Brazos explain to the staff why this proposal would not be an acceptable option in resolving its transmission access dispute with GSU/Entergy?
2)
In terms of Brazos' access to the GSU/Entergy transmission grid, what is Brazos' understanding of the significance, if any, of the presence of a specific sentence requiring one transmission rate for a group of entities (i.e., "For each coordinating group of entities there shall be a single transmission charge.") in the Waterford 3 nuclear license (antitrust license condition 5) and the lack of a similar sentence in the River Bend and Grand Gulf nuclear licenses?
- 3) Are there currently any specific power transactions underway or currently being negotiated which Brazos will have to forego if the GSU/Entergy merger is consummated and Brazos it not granted " network transmission" or parallel meaningful access to the newly created GSU/Entergy regional transmission network?
- 4) At pge 7 of Brazos' " Petition To Intervene, Comments, And Request For Hearing Of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.", Brazos states that the proposed merger between GSU and Entergy represents, Such a significant change in the overall operating context of River Bend and its Antitrust License Conditions clearly requires that the NRC institute hearing procedures in this docket in order to develop a record which will enable it to determine whether the existing GSU Antitrust Conditions, as t 0 1
h hh h
A 8
P
I
~
Jonathan S. Liebowitz, Esq.
2 i
well as those of LP&L and MP&L, are adequate to deal with, inter alia, the anticompetitive effects arising from such increased centralization of control over the nuclear operating licenses granted by this Commission.
The focus of Brazos' concerns appears to be GSU's alleged failure to comply with its River Bend antitrust license conditions.
Is this a correct assumption?
Thank you for your cooperation in assisting the staff in the review process.
I Sincerely, Geoffr y Gr r c ing hig'f Inspe ion rd i nsin JP licy Branch Progr Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff cc: Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
July 7, 1993 Jonathan S. Liebowitz, Esq.
2 The focus of Brazos' concerns appears to be GSU's alleged failure to comply with its River Bend antitrust license conditions.
Is this a correct assumption?
Thank you for your cooperation in assisting the staff in the review process.
Sincerely, Original signed by G. Grant Geoffrey Grant, Acting Chief Inspection and Licensing Policy Branch 2
Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff cc: Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Distribution:
Central Files i
ILPB RF GGrant RWood WLambe DSkay GHoller NRCPDR LPDR PDFES/ILPB PDFES/ILPB OGC
.NRR/PDIV-2 ILPB PMAS Wlambe*
RWood*
GHoller*
M*D$kay GGr 7'2L/93 V/'l 6/29/93 6/29/93 7/1/93
/
- See previous concurrence V
t 4
m a
a Jonathan S. Liebowitz, Esq.
2 The focus of Brazos' concerns appears to be GSU's alleged failure to comply with its River Bend antitrust license conditions.
Is this a correct assumption?
Thank you for your cooperation in assisting the staff in the review process.
Sincerely, Geoffrey Grant, Acting Chief Inspection and Licensing Policy Branch Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff cc: Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
-t Distribution:
Central Files.
t ILPB RF GGrant RWood WLambe i
DSkay GHoller NRCPDR LPDR
[-
r
.)((IB h,OGC NRR/PDIV-2 ILPB/PMAS PDFES/I PB PI WLambe d
GHoller DSkay GGrant f7}{f'/93
( /{ ~ 93
'7/4 /93
/ /93
/ /93
/
- - -.