ML20065T570
| ML20065T570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1982 |
| From: | Green T PAINESVILLE, OH |
| To: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211020581 | |
| Download: ML20065T570 (1) | |
Text
I b cG+
So-44o l1%'.",""[',u,m Od35V'll2-CITY OF PAINESVILLE 1,n t.,,.,,,, s,, s1,,,,.,.
l'AIN i'.SVit.l.E, ()]II() 39,77 TLt.truumE (216l 352-9:pH Y *'
ulat & & u.,6 /
JL 2
m
?a6:~has2:
5 Y+
&. y9te n/
~ ~
tyod
- i. ) 7to.
lm/
6v e./CA Q.) % i A/ae eAuf bb/ $
'Lv
~ -
1% es, p d s a n d n o v d D a -
ois c4 ~f m aez.
y a u w pn A w.
5) hte b $c 0-n.&b x-S et 4
M &Y Y'
)
hDD
^
1dN Sec Aw (.Lv
, %MU ps,a/4 V
[
4'f4 6 hfR 0
0 0
0 PDR M
Council-Manager Government
m e--
c
\\
v 5
i dez 3
aus s Mr. T. Green. Superintendent Painesville Electric Division 7 Richmond Street Painesville,fhio 44077
Dear rir. Creen:
OPEF.ATI!1G LICENSE AT:TITF.1JST REVIEW C# THE PERRY / DAY!S '! ESSE NUCLEAP PLANTS The htC staff is presently reviewing the application of the Cleveland Electric Illur.inating Company, hereir.after. CEI. (as one'of the co-applicant CAPCO pool mer.bers) for an operating license for Unit 1. f of the Perry #wclear Plant.s The purpose of this review-is to establish whether any significant changes, which have antitrust implicationse have occurred as.a consequence of _CEI's (or other CAPCo merbers') activities since the construction pemit antitrust review was cocoleted in 1977 As a seans of assisting in.our analysis 'of significant changes, we would appreciate your response to the following questions:
b 1.
Has CEI corpleted the second 138 tv transr ission line to the i
Painesville electric systen?
(
2.
What effect has th'e interconne[ tion or lack of the
(
interconnection with CEI had on the systen planning,and j
the operation of the Painesville electric systen?.
3 G
Whattypeofservice..ifany.istheCityofPainesvil_le(
- 3.
taking fron CE17 4
What effect (or anticipated effect) if any. have the chames in the Easic CAPCO Operating Agreepeat and the discontinuation
(
ef joint CAPCD generating units had on the City's planning and systen operation? and.
j
- /.. _..
5.
What is your judgment of the viability of the Painesville l
electric systen?
/
W l
g.:- x
/Rt pt c' e P,I
,3 c
c
- w
_9
- s. -
a
$p
.e-j \\ 3...
?
4 s
i 1 2
To assure a tioely review of the captioned operating license application.
,1 we would apprecir.te your response to this Inouf ry within thirty days.
.i Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
j
?d Sincerely, a
$ A.L%han i
t 6
Argf1 Toalston, Ehfer
)
Antitrust and Economic
'j Analysfs Branch Division of Engineering
!]
Office of Muclear Reactor a
Regulation l
I a
,Y si h
b
?h o,
k g
?
?
i-l qi r
);
L',
s.-
c.
h1 g.
,[f L
a
>i M
-3 d
H (i,
n.
a k!
blm
- *k
-A