|
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20149G1941993-09-13013 September 1993 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Listed OI Repts.Record Listed in App D Being Withheld from Public Disclosure Because It Consists of Records Compiled for Law Enforcement Purposes.Nrc Continuing to Review Records Re FOIA Request IA-93-355, Partial Response to FOIA Request for Listed OI Repts.Record Listed in App D Being Withheld from Public Disclosure Because It Consists of Records Compiled for Law Enforcement Purposes.Nrc Continuing to Review Records Re FOIA Request1993-09-13013 September 1993 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Listed OI Repts.Record Listed in App D Being Withheld from Public Disclosure Because It Consists of Records Compiled for Law Enforcement Purposes.Nrc Continuing to Review Records Re FOIA Request ML20072C9611993-06-18018 June 1993 FOIA Request for Listed OI Repts ML20079D3191991-06-10010 June 1991 Forwards B Tatalovich Correspondence Re Plant ML20235A1251987-12-16016 December 1987 Forwards Info Re Resource Technical Svcs,Inc,Including Summary of NRC Contract Work,Nrc Form 26 for Three Existing Contracts,Audit Info,Work History & Lists of Expertise Available for Special Insps & of Current Resource Svcs ML20235W0981987-10-13013 October 1987 Final Response to FOIA Request for Records.No Records Subj to Request located.FOIA-87-40 in Name of Thomas Available in PDR IA-87-676, Final Response to FOIA Request for Records.No Records Subj to Request located.FOIA-87-40 in Name of Thomas Available in PDR1987-10-13013 October 1987 Final Response to FOIA Request for Records.No Records Subj to Request located.FOIA-87-40 in Name of Thomas Available in PDR ML20235W0951987-10-0808 October 1987 FOIA Request for All FOIA Requests Made for Zimmer Plant or GE Mark I or II Containment by Cincinnati Gas & Electric, Dayton Power & Light or Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric & FOIA 87-40 ML20235B3081987-09-21021 September 1987 Responds to FOIA Request for Documents,Including AEC to ACRS Forwarding Safety Evaluation Re Zimmer.App a Documents Cannot Be Located.App B Documents in Pdr.App C & D Documents Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790) ML20235M4251987-07-13013 July 1987 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Acrs. Forwards Documents for Categories One & Three of FOIA Request.Review of 21 Addl ACRS Documents Continuing ML20234E4571987-06-23023 June 1987 Partial Response to FOIA Request for 771026 Minutes of ACRS Subcommittee on Fluid/Hydraulic Dynamic Effects Meeting in Portland,Or & Addl ACRS Documentation.Documents Identified on App H & Addl ACRS Documents Encl ML20209G6751987-03-27027 March 1987 FOIA Request for All Matls Made Available in Accordance W/ FOIA 87-40 & All Matls Produced to Either Plaintiffs in Zimmer Litigation &/Or GE ML20212H6601987-01-20020 January 1987 Final Response to FOIA Request.App F Documents Re Marviken II Project Encl & Available in PDR ML20210S4131986-09-26026 September 1986 Further Response to FOIA Request for 16 Categories of Records Re Facilities.Forwards App D & E Documents.Documents Also Available in PDR ML20210L2601986-03-20020 March 1986 Forwards Endorsement 31 to Nelia Policy NF-206 ML20141N2771986-01-14014 January 1986 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Seven Classes of Documents.Forwards App a Documents.App B Documents Available in Pdr.App C Documents Outside Scope of Request,Per 860114 Telcon W/Ca Reed ML20140F3691986-01-14014 January 1986 Further Response to FOIA Request for Several Categories of Documents Re Pressure Suppression Containment.Fsar & SER for Limerick Only Documentation Re 4x4 Tests.Encl Apps D-G Documents Responsive to Item 4 Also Available in PDR ML20138Q8301985-12-0303 December 1985 Further Response to FOIA Request for Records Re Voluntary or Required Redress of Sites Where Const Was Terminated, Including Crbr & Legal Analysis.Forwards App E Documents.App D & E Documents Available in Pdr.Photographs Also Available ML20136D8751985-11-0606 November 1985 Further Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re H Hoyt & Aloot Oct 1983 Rept on NRC Investigations at Facility. Listed Documents Encl & Available in Pdr.Certain Documents Totally Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) ML20136J3371985-08-0101 August 1985 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Facility.Documents Listed on Encl Printout Located in Ofc of Investigations.Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) IA-84-604, Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Re Ofc of Investigation Repts on Facility.Documents Listed on Encl Printout Located in Ofc of Investigations as of 850227. Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7)1985-08-0101 August 1985 Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Re Ofc of Investigation Repts on Facility.Documents Listed on Encl Printout Located in Ofc of Investigations as of 850227. Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) IA-83-684, Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Facility.Documents Listed on Encl Printout Located in Ofc of Investigations.Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7)1985-08-0101 August 1985 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Facility.Documents Listed on Encl Printout Located in Ofc of Investigations.Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) ML20134D7991985-08-0101 August 1985 Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Re Ofc of Investigation Repts on Facility.Documents Listed on Encl Printout Located in Ofc of Investigations as of 850227. Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) IA-83-787, Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Which Resulted in Issuance of Notice of Violation to Util in Nov 1981. Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7)1985-07-31031 July 1985 Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Which Resulted in Issuance of Notice of Violation to Util in Nov 1981. Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) IA-83-655, Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Wh Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.Forwards Computer Printout of Document.W/O Encl.Documents Contained in Ofc of Investigation Files Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7)1985-07-31031 July 1985 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Wh Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.Forwards Computer Printout of Document.W/O Encl.Documents Contained in Ofc of Investigation Files Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) ML20133Q2231985-07-31031 July 1985 Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Which Resulted in Issuance of Notice of Violation to Util in Nov 1981. Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) ML20134D5821985-07-31031 July 1985 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Wh Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.Forwards Computer Printout of Document.W/O Encl.Documents Contained in Ofc of Investigation Files Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) ML20133Q3771985-07-29029 July 1985 Responds to FOIA Request for Ofc of Investigations Documents Re Wh Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.Forwards List of Documents as of 840227.All Documents Withheld (FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) ML20129J4671985-07-15015 July 1985 Informs That Util 821124 Application for Extension of Const Completion Date Fee Exempt.Refund Being Processed ML20133C7371985-06-14014 June 1985 Further Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Site Redress Where Plant Const Begun,Including Clinch River Facility & NRC Legal Analysis Re Redress.Forwards App B Documents.App C Document Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20133B5651985-05-10010 May 1985 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Four Categories of Documents Re Facility.Forwards App a Documents.Documents Also Available in Pdr.App B Documents Already Available in Pdr.Search Continuing ML20129E9971985-05-0909 May 1985 Responds to FOIA Request for Compilations of Results of Operator Licensing & Requalification Exams.App a Documents Placed in Pdr.App B Documents Already in PDR ML20127F5341985-04-18018 April 1985 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Records Re BNL Investigation of Ee Kent Allegations.Forwards App a Documents.Documents Also Available in Pdr.Remaining Documents Will Be Forwarded Upon Completion of NRC Review ML20099M2911985-03-15015 March 1985 Forwards Endorsement 27 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20129B9301985-02-19019 February 1985 FOIA Request for Documents Re DOJ Inquiry Into Potential Wrongdoing by NRC Employees in Dealing W/Tmi & Zimmer Plants & Dh Gamble Testimony from TMI Restart Proceeding ML20100B6181985-01-30030 January 1985 Forwards Payment of Bill D-0089.Fee Paid.W/O Encl ML20125B8661985-01-17017 January 1985 Further Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Oct 1983 Rept by H Hoyt & Aloot on NRC Investigations.Forwards App a Documents.Documents Also Available in Pdr.Info Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 2,6 & 7) ML20128E4161984-12-27027 December 1984 Interim Response to FOIA Request for All Agency Documents Re Oct 1983 Rept by Judge H Hoyt & Aloot on NRC Investigations at Facility.Forwards Documents.Documents Partially & Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5-7) ML20101F7621984-12-20020 December 1984 Forwards Endorsement 26 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20129J2141984-12-0707 December 1984 Responds to FOIA Request for Interim or Final Repts Generated by Ofc of Investigation Re Facility.Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20093M2541984-10-18018 October 1984 Requests Written Verification of Implementation of Site Restoration Plan So CPPR-88 May Be Terminated ML20129J2031984-10-11011 October 1984 FOIA Request for Interim or Final Repts Generated by Ofc of Investigation Re Facility ML20107L6521984-07-19019 July 1984 FOIA Request for All Documents Re Insp Rept 50-358/84-04 ML20105C9801984-07-19019 July 1984 FOIA Request for Documents Re Ofc of Investigation Rept on Facility.If Requested Matls Still Protected,Copies of Matls W/Protected Sections Redacted Requested ML20151J1601984-06-0505 June 1984 Forwards IE Insp Rept 50-358/84-04 on 840220-0426.Insp Covered Status of Welding Procedure & Welder Performance Qualifications ML20091L5991984-06-0404 June 1984 Forwards Util 840601 Response to NRC 840503 Request for Addl Info Re Environ Review of Request to Withdraw Application for Ol.Five Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards Are Available in Pdr.Related Correspondence ML20091J1321984-06-0101 June 1984 Forwards Environ Review of Zimmer Site Status for Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co, in Response to NRC 840503 Request for Addl Info Re Withdrawal of OL Application.W/ Three Oversize Figures.Apertures Cards Are Available in PDR ML20091A2141984-05-22022 May 1984 Forwards Ohio Edison Annual Rept,1983, Toledo Edison Co 1983 Annual Rept, Duquesne Light Co Annual Rept,1983 & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co 1983 Annual Rept ML20128E3861984-05-22022 May 1984 FOIA Request for All Agency Records or Info Re Oct 1983 Rept by Judge H Hoyt & Aloot Re NRC Investigations at Facility ML20084P2401984-05-11011 May 1984 Advises That Addl Info for Environ Review of Request to Withdraw OL Application Will Be Provided by 840601,per 1993-09-13
[Table view] Category:INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML20072C9611993-06-18018 June 1993 FOIA Request for Listed OI Repts ML20079D3191991-06-10010 June 1991 Forwards B Tatalovich Correspondence Re Plant ML20235A1251987-12-16016 December 1987 Forwards Info Re Resource Technical Svcs,Inc,Including Summary of NRC Contract Work,Nrc Form 26 for Three Existing Contracts,Audit Info,Work History & Lists of Expertise Available for Special Insps & of Current Resource Svcs ML20235W0951987-10-0808 October 1987 FOIA Request for All FOIA Requests Made for Zimmer Plant or GE Mark I or II Containment by Cincinnati Gas & Electric, Dayton Power & Light or Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric & FOIA 87-40 ML20209G6751987-03-27027 March 1987 FOIA Request for All Matls Made Available in Accordance W/ FOIA 87-40 & All Matls Produced to Either Plaintiffs in Zimmer Litigation &/Or GE ML20210L2601986-03-20020 March 1986 Forwards Endorsement 31 to Nelia Policy NF-206 ML20099M2911985-03-15015 March 1985 Forwards Endorsement 27 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20129B9301985-02-19019 February 1985 FOIA Request for Documents Re DOJ Inquiry Into Potential Wrongdoing by NRC Employees in Dealing W/Tmi & Zimmer Plants & Dh Gamble Testimony from TMI Restart Proceeding ML20100B6181985-01-30030 January 1985 Forwards Payment of Bill D-0089.Fee Paid.W/O Encl ML20101F7621984-12-20020 December 1984 Forwards Endorsement 26 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20093M2541984-10-18018 October 1984 Requests Written Verification of Implementation of Site Restoration Plan So CPPR-88 May Be Terminated ML20129J2031984-10-11011 October 1984 FOIA Request for Interim or Final Repts Generated by Ofc of Investigation Re Facility ML20107L6521984-07-19019 July 1984 FOIA Request for All Documents Re Insp Rept 50-358/84-04 ML20105C9801984-07-19019 July 1984 FOIA Request for Documents Re Ofc of Investigation Rept on Facility.If Requested Matls Still Protected,Copies of Matls W/Protected Sections Redacted Requested ML20091L5991984-06-0404 June 1984 Forwards Util 840601 Response to NRC 840503 Request for Addl Info Re Environ Review of Request to Withdraw Application for Ol.Five Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards Are Available in Pdr.Related Correspondence ML20091J1321984-06-0101 June 1984 Forwards Environ Review of Zimmer Site Status for Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co, in Response to NRC 840503 Request for Addl Info Re Withdrawal of OL Application.W/ Three Oversize Figures.Apertures Cards Are Available in PDR ML20128E3861984-05-22022 May 1984 FOIA Request for All Agency Records or Info Re Oct 1983 Rept by Judge H Hoyt & Aloot Re NRC Investigations at Facility ML20091A2141984-05-22022 May 1984 Forwards Ohio Edison Annual Rept,1983, Toledo Edison Co 1983 Annual Rept, Duquesne Light Co Annual Rept,1983 & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co 1983 Annual Rept ML20084P2401984-05-11011 May 1984 Advises That Addl Info for Environ Review of Request to Withdraw OL Application Will Be Provided by 840601,per ML20084M0911984-05-0404 May 1984 Advises That Preventive Maint & QA Programs Will Be Discontinued on 840518 Due to Termination of Const & Dismissal of Application.Snm Provisions Will Remain in Effect Until Removal of Matl ML20112H8101984-04-0505 April 1984 FOIA Request for Repts Resulting from Listed Environ Qualification of Equipment Site Audits to Be Placed in Pdr. Access to Any Repts Resulting from Audits Held Since Oct 1982 Also Requested ML20084P3501984-03-14014 March 1984 Requests Response to Encl W & V Smelser 840210 Inquiry Into NRC Attitude Toward Utils.Concerns Include Marble Hill & Bailly Cancellation,Withdrawal of Util Application for Zimmer & Denial of License for Byron Facility ML20114A3121984-03-12012 March 1984 FOIA Request for Facility Nonconformance Repts ML20113D2281984-03-0808 March 1984 FOIA Request for Copies of All Nonconformance Repts on Facility from Start of Const to Present ML20087D1131984-03-0505 March 1984 Forwards Natl Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors to State of Oh Re Util Abandonment of Facility as Nuclear Unit & Board Willingness to Provide Support Should Plant Be Reinstated ML20083P2521984-02-29029 February 1984 FOIA Request for Correspondence Between Util,Hj Kaiser & NRC Referenced in Encl Ohio Civil Rights Commission ML20114A3081984-02-28028 February 1984 FOIA Request for All Region III Insp Repts from Nov 1983 to Present & All Communications Between Region III & Bechtel, Dayton Power & Light Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co Representatives Re Facility ML20102A0241984-02-28028 February 1984 FOIA Request for Region III & IE Repts from Nov 1983 to Present & Communications Between Region III & Util,Bechtel or Kaiser Corp Officials ML20084R6521984-02-24024 February 1984 FOIA Request for Computer Printout from Sept 1980 to Present of Civil Penalty Info on 27 Listed Nuclear Facilities.Sample Format Encl ML20086P7291984-02-17017 February 1984 Forwards Revised Organization Chart,Effective as of 840217. Organizational Changes Due to Decision to Convert Station from Nuclear to coal-fueled Generating Facility ML20083N2371984-02-17017 February 1984 FOIA Request for Four Categories of Documents Re Facility ML20086P6321984-02-16016 February 1984 Confirms 840202 Telcon Understanding That,Pending Final Commission Action for Withdrawal of Application,No Need Exists to Continue Previously Required Submittals to NRC ML20083N2621984-02-16016 February 1984 FOIA Request for Interim Repts Issued by Ofc of Investigation Re Plant,Including DOJ Rept Re Harassment of QC Inspectors ML20112E1481984-02-10010 February 1984 Appeals Denial of 831123 FOIA Request for 831115 Transcript Re Pending Plant Investigations & Documents Prepared After Discussing 830701 Staff Decision Not to Approve Util Actions for Plant ML20080A9041984-01-30030 January 1984 Forwards Comments on Reactor Controls,Inc (Rci) 830915 Response to Draft IE Info Notice Re Const Deficiencies,Per 831017 Request.Work Orders for Lateral Restraint Beams Not Issued to Rci ML20079S2451984-01-27027 January 1984 Informs of 840120 Agreement to Cease Const of Facility as Nuclear Plant & Convert Plant to coal-fired Facility. Ej Wagner Designated Responsible for Closing Out Nuclear Activities at Facility ML20079P4161984-01-24024 January 1984 Requests Completion of Pending Actions on 831216 Plan to Verify Quality of Const,To Closeout Outstanding Items in 821112 Order to Show Cause & Order Immediately Suspending Const ML20079M8961984-01-20020 January 1984 Forwards Personnel Resumes Inadvertently Omitted from Re Independent Auditor for Plan to Verify Const ML20079N1991984-01-19019 January 1984 Informs That Training Directive ZPM-TR.101 & Master Training Plan Developed for NRC Review ML20079N2161984-01-19019 January 1984 Requests Written Concurrence for Training Activities,As Outlined.Facility Site Directives & Master Training Plan for All Site Training Will Be Provided to Region Iii,Per ML20079F1291984-01-16016 January 1984 Requests NRC Approval of Teledyne Engineering Svcs as Independent Design Review (Idr) Contractor.Teledyne Proposal Forwarded.Criteria Used During Evaluation & Presentation Matl from NRC 840113 Meeting Encl ML20079G1841984-01-13013 January 1984 Forwards Resumes for Principal Positions Noted on Organization Chart in Section IV of Ebasco 831205 Proposal Re Independent Auditor for Plan to Verify Const ML20080F0441984-01-13013 January 1984 Notifies of Approval of Resolution R/18-1984 Expressing City of Cincinnati Council Dissatisfaction Over NRC Failure to Require third-party Independent Review of Facility. Resolution Encl ML20086K1081984-01-13013 January 1984 Forwards Council of City of Cincinnati Resolution R/18-1984 Which Expresses Dissatisfaction Over NRC Failure to Require third-party Independent Review of Facility ML20079H2891984-01-11011 January 1984 Submits Partial Response to Util Plan to Verify Quality of Const for Facility.Counsel for Miami Valley Power Project Decision Not to Attend 840111 Public Meeting Clarified. Related Info Encl ML20086L8371984-01-11011 January 1984 Requests Development of Proposed Facility Public Oversight Committee.Committee Establishment Would Inspire Public Confidence ML20079E2401984-01-10010 January 1984 Forwards Quality Confirmation Program, Monthly Rept for Dec 1983,per Rf Warnick ML20079F3731984-01-10010 January 1984 Forwards Packet of Newspaper Articles Re Facility.Packet Acts as Chronological Summary of Major Events During 14 Months Prior to 831201 ML20080F0291984-01-10010 January 1984 Notifies of 840105 Adoption of Motion Advising NRC That Limiting Public Participation to Time Permitting at 840111 Meeting Not in Best Interest of City of Cincinnati or Citizens ML20083J1491984-01-10010 January 1984 Advises That Cincinnati City Council Adopted Vice-Mayor M Spencer Encl Motion Before Council Opposing Limited Public Participation at 840111 Meeting Between NRC & Util 1993-06-18
[Table view] Category:LEGAL/LAW FIRM TO NRC
MONTHYEARML20235W0951987-10-0808 October 1987 FOIA Request for All FOIA Requests Made for Zimmer Plant or GE Mark I or II Containment by Cincinnati Gas & Electric, Dayton Power & Light or Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric & FOIA 87-40 ML20209G6751987-03-27027 March 1987 FOIA Request for All Matls Made Available in Accordance W/ FOIA 87-40 & All Matls Produced to Either Plaintiffs in Zimmer Litigation &/Or GE ML20210L2601986-03-20020 March 1986 Forwards Endorsement 31 to Nelia Policy NF-206 ML20099M2911985-03-15015 March 1985 Forwards Endorsement 27 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20101F7621984-12-20020 December 1984 Forwards Endorsement 26 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20093M2541984-10-18018 October 1984 Requests Written Verification of Implementation of Site Restoration Plan So CPPR-88 May Be Terminated ML20105C9801984-07-19019 July 1984 FOIA Request for Documents Re Ofc of Investigation Rept on Facility.If Requested Matls Still Protected,Copies of Matls W/Protected Sections Redacted Requested ML20107L6521984-07-19019 July 1984 FOIA Request for All Documents Re Insp Rept 50-358/84-04 ML20091L5991984-06-0404 June 1984 Forwards Util 840601 Response to NRC 840503 Request for Addl Info Re Environ Review of Request to Withdraw Application for Ol.Five Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards Are Available in Pdr.Related Correspondence ML20128E3861984-05-22022 May 1984 FOIA Request for All Agency Records or Info Re Oct 1983 Rept by Judge H Hoyt & Aloot Re NRC Investigations at Facility ML20112E1481984-02-10010 February 1984 Appeals Denial of 831123 FOIA Request for 831115 Transcript Re Pending Plant Investigations & Documents Prepared After Discussing 830701 Staff Decision Not to Approve Util Actions for Plant ML20083F0011983-12-27027 December 1983 Opposes Miami Valley Power Project Petition to Defer Judgement on Proposed Course of Action for Facility Completion,Based on 821112 Order to Show Cause & Order Immediately Suspending Const.Request Moot ML20083P2001983-12-23023 December 1983 FOIA Request for Documents Re Investigation of Const, Planning & Financial Problems Which Resulted in Nov 1981 Notice of Violation ML20083E9761983-12-20020 December 1983 Forwards Endorsements 23 & 24 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20083A8381983-12-16016 December 1983 Comments on ALAB-753 Relevancy to ASLB Consideration of Motion to Reconsider 830915 Decision Denying Miami Valley Power Project Motion to Reopen ML20112E1751983-11-23023 November 1983 FOIA Request for 831115 Transcript Re Pending Investigations of Plant & Documents Prepared on or After 830701 Re Staff Decision Not to Approve Util Proposed Course of Action for Plant ML20086Q1981983-11-23023 November 1983 FOIA Request for Two Categories of Documents Re Facility ML20081M8221983-11-15015 November 1983 Responds to ASLB Request for Progress Rept on Steps Taken to Resolve Offsite Emergency Planning Issues.Final Draft on School Sys Implementing Procedures Expected in Early 1984 ML20080D0121983-11-0707 November 1983 FOIA Request for Documents Not Available in PDR Re Informal & Formal Investigation Pending by NRC Concerning Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co &/Or Facility ML20078F9961983-10-0505 October 1983 Forwards 830930 News Release Stating That Bechtel Power Corp Estimates Facility Completion in Range of 24 to 36 Months.Final Date Contingent on Orderly & Timely Resolution of Nov 1982 Show Cause Order.Related Correspondence ML20077J5281983-08-11011 August 1983 Responds to Request for Comments on Unresolved Offsite Emergency Planning Issues.Hearing in Jan 1984 Re Planning Procedures for Schools Recommended If Hearing Deemed Necessary ML20077J0131983-08-10010 August 1983 Forwards Comments on Miami Valley Power Project 830525 Request That Commission Modify 830210 Director'S Decision. Project Provides No Basis in Law or Fact to Reverse Decision Denying Petition to Suspend Const ML20071P1721983-06-0303 June 1983 Requests Commission Ignore Miami Valley Power Project Requesting Commission Modify IE Director'S Decision, DD-82-03,ruling on Project 820824 Petition to Suspend Plant Const ML20080B0181983-04-21021 April 1983 FOIA Request for NRC Rept & General Documents Re Investigation of Charges That Bechtel Representatives Were at Facility Prior to Bechtel Nomination to Conduct Independent Plant Review ML20071D6501983-03-0707 March 1983 Forwards Endorsement 22 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20065B8601983-02-17017 February 1983 Forwards Correspondence Re Site Emergency Planning,Including Anl Evaluation of SOPs for Oh & Clermont County,Oh.Draft of Brown County,Oh Radiological Emergency Response Plan Distributed ML20023C0461983-02-0909 February 1983 FOIA Request for Transcript of Commission Meetings Discussing 821112 Order CLI-82-33 & Documents Supporting NRC Recommendation to Commission Re Issuance of Order ML20070L4691982-12-29029 December 1982 Advises That Mj Wetterhahn Will Present Argument on Behalf of Applicant ML20079J3591982-12-21021 December 1982 Advises That M Sinclair Will Not Respond to Applicant 821210 Objections to Interrogatories Prior to Completion of NRC Investigation of Zimmer Area Citizens of Ky Issues ML20079J4021982-12-20020 December 1982 Forwards Endorsement 21 to Nelia Policy NF-249 ML20055A4041982-07-14014 July 1982 Forwards Final Rule Providing That for Issuance of OLs Authorizing Only Fuel Loading & Low Power Testing,No NRC & FEMA Review &/Or Determinations Necessary Re Adequacy of Offsite Emergency Preparedness.W/O Encl ML20090M6051982-07-0202 July 1982 Requests Tape of 820604 Interview W/F Oltz to Verify Accuracy of Transcript Received from Region III Re IE Investigation Rept 50-358/81-13 ML20090M5981982-06-0707 June 1982 Requests DOJ Re Facility ML20054H5251982-06-0303 June 1982 Requests Either Util Ofc of vice-president & General Counsel or Counsel Ofc Be Notified of Future Visits by Commissioners,Members of Immediate Staff or Advisors ML20054D7971982-04-16016 April 1982 Forwards Amended Page 14 Correcting Paragraph 44 in Zimmer Area Citizens & Zimmer Area Citizens of Ky 820413 Proposed Findings of Fact ML20042B2861982-03-17017 March 1982 Forwards Endorsement 20 to ANI Policy NF-249 ML20039E5661982-01-0505 January 1982 Advises That Response to City of Mentor,Ky Interrogatories Being Sent Separately.Documents Requested Available for Insp at Util Ofcs in Cincinnati,Oh.Related Correspondence ML20040C4541982-01-0505 January 1982 Forwards Endorsements 18 & 19 to ANI Policy NF-249.W/o Encl ML20039E7201982-01-0404 January 1982 Repts Status of Prehearing Preparation Per ASLB Memorandum & Order.Applicants Have Not Received ZAC-ZACK or City of Mentor,Ky Qualifications of Witnesses to Be Sponsored or Scope of Intended Testimony ML20064E1731981-12-18018 December 1981 Requests 16 Documents Referred to in IE Investigation Rept 50-358/81-13 ML20040G3851981-11-30030 November 1981 Requests Transcript of Commission 811116 Meeting Where Proposed Civil Penalty Against Util Was Discussed ML20039H0251981-10-0707 October 1981 FOIA Request for Ofc of Inspector & Auditor Rept, Adequacy of IE Investigation 50-358/80-09 at William H Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. ML20052C2871981-10-0505 October 1981 Requests re-evaluation of Finding Re No Significant Antitrust Changes in Licensee Activities or Proposed Activities Subsequent to Previous CP Review by Atty General & NRC ML20010J5781981-09-28028 September 1981 Requests Evidentiary Hearing Reconvene on 811026. Prehearing Conference Would Not Be Meaningful to Remaining Issue Re Emergency Plan ML20010E3961981-08-31031 August 1981 Forwards ANI Binder EB-77 ML19352B2781981-06-22022 June 1981 Forwards Maelu Binder XB-77.ANI Binder EB-77 Will Be Transmitted Upon Receipt ML19345F9681981-02-13013 February 1981 Forwards Prof Qualifications of Wh Zimmer,Jm Emery,Pr Anderson & Kk Chitkara,Constituting Part of Applicant Direct Evidence for Financial Qualification Hearing,Per ASLB 810204 Order.Other Direct Evidence Already Submitted ML19341A7901981-01-23023 January 1981 Forwards Applicant Responses to NRC Second Set of Interrogatories Re Evacuation Time Study.Offers to Meet W/Nrc to Discuss Emergency Plan or Any Other Questions ML19345C3351980-11-26026 November 1980 Submits Correction to Applicants' 801119 Motion,Requiring Justification for NRC Inability to Proceed.Deadline for Submission of Detailed Explanation Is 801217,not 801107 ML19331E0471980-09-0202 September 1980 Responds to ASLB 800804 Memorandum on Behalf of Util,Re Util & NRC Plans for Analyzing & Evaluating Safety Significance of 800727 Earthquake.Util Has Concluded That Event Had No Safety Significance for Facility 1987-03-27
[Table view] |
Text
.
T H O M PS O N, HIN E A N D F LO RY
- 9 2 0 N S T R E C T, N. W. i j .
WAS H I NGTo N, D.C. 2 o o 3 6 em C& tys t amp, Onto T E L E **ON E (202) 3 36-0 800 ' ^ easut,OMoo
' =%%st civv emm. evittiseo o rm np varcr v
,oMio 44sse cf d / als 00 October 5, 1981 s c. e 4> 4. n . a ff 3 jf Arctnra D RECEWGD; 3 2 -
OCT -4
- yay 3 1982> I 1 "r 19Bf
- c4NNhis c. of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ** ic * $
- .. ear Regulatory Commission ', CY 8 g i .shing ton , D.C. 20555 @
cd gg m t
- Re: Docket No. 50-358; Request for Reevaluation of Finding re No Significant Antitrust Clianges
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to procedures adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (" Commission") as set forth in the proposed revisions to 10 C.F.R. S 21.101 (e) published in the Federal Register of March 26, 1981 (46 FR 18747), this is a request for reevaluation of a finding of the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation that no significant antitrust changes in a licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review by the Attorney General and the Commission. The finding in question was made on July 14, 1981, in the above-referenced docket relating to the Zimmer Nuclear Unit 1 and was published in the Federal Register of August 6, 1981 (46 FR 40112).
This Request is submitted on behalf of Buckeye Power, Inc. (" Buckeye") a non-profit electric generation and transmission cooperative which provides wholesale electric service to its 8205040571 011005 0 DR ADOCK 05000350 4 PDR gip
- m ea nt- , - -a-- -k- - s- --- a
, THCM PDON,' HIN E AND FLORY Director October 5, 1981 Page Two 4
twenty-nine (29) electric cooperative members in the State of Ohio.
The basis for this Request is that the Dayton Power &
Light Company (" Dayton P & L"), one of three applicants for an operating license for Zimmer Nuclear Unit 1, has engaged in a pattern of anticompetitive activity which compels remedial action'in the context of this proceeding in order to implement fully the purposes of Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. S2135) and the regulations proraulgated thereunder (10 C.F.R. S2.101).
Although certain aspects of Dayton P & L's anticompetitive l behavior occurred prior to the July 14, 1981 finding of the Director, Dayton P & L's true anticompetitive design did not become clearly evident to Buckeye until quite recently.
As explained in greater detail below, Dayton P & L's anticompetitive behavior has consisted of a willful refusal to provide contracted for transmission services to certain rural electric cooperatives in Ohio. In refusing to honor i its obligation to provide transmission services, Dayton P &
L is abusing its monopoly position in the control and ownership of transmission facilities in order to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over small rural electric cooperatives.
l Under Ohio law, the primary competition between electric
, utilities is for the attraction of new customers. In order i
I . . _s
. THL;M POCN, HINE AN D FLORY Director October 5, 1981 Page Three to obtain new customers, an electric utility must be able to assure the customer that it can provide adequate electric power to serve that customer's needs in a timely manner. In many instances, the mere possibility of delay in receiving electric service is sufficient to induce a potential customer to seek an alternative source of supply even though service from a rural electric cooperative may be less expensive and otherwise equally or more attractive. By withholding indispensable l l
transmission services from rural electric cooperatives, '
Dayton P & L is attempting to undermine the reliability of rural electric cooperatives as ~ to discourage new customers, particularly industrial and commercial enterprises, from taking electric service from rural electric cooperatives.
The effect of such conduct is to assure that new customers will be more likely to locate in areas served by large investor-owned utilities such as Dayton P & L.
I. Factual Background Duckeye, Dayton P & L and five other electric utility companies in the State of Ohio are signatories to a Power Delivery Agreement dated January 1, 1968. (A copy of this Agreement is attached as Exhibit A hereto). This agreement is both a contract and a rate schedule on file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
J
, TH z,M PCoN, HIN E AN o FLORY Director October 5, 1981 Page Four Pursuant to Section 4.3(c) (ii) of the Power Delivery Agreement, the electric utilities that are parties to that Agreement, including Dayton P & L, are required to make available or provide adequate delivery (i.e. transmission) service to such additional delivery points as may be designated by Buckeye at any location within the State of Ohio for the purpose of meeting the requirements of a Buckeye member ,
resulting from load growth and/or prospective load growth in the affected area at any point of delivery where the monthly demand at the additional delivery point will be 750 kilowatts or more at the time the additional delivery point is established.
The " concerned" electric utility (i.e. the utility that is in the best position to perform the service) is required to establish the new delivery point requested by Buckeye as promptly as may be practicable.
Pursuant to Section 4.4(a) of the Power Delivery Agreement, whenever a new delivery point is established pursuant to Section 4. 3 (c) of that Agreement, the utility company that can most advantageously provide transmission service at the new delivery point, taking into account the nature of existing facilities, the cost of constructing additional facilities and factors affecting the reliability of service, is required
, THUMPOCN, HINE ANo FLomy Director October 5, 1981 Page Five I to construct, own and maintain the necessary transmission facilities including the connecting span of conductors to the facilities of Buckeye or the Buckeye member involved.
Buckeye, or the Buckeye member involved, is obligated to provide or cause to be provided and maintain the necessary substation equipment at the new delivery point.
j II. Dayton P & L's Course of Anticompetitive Conduct A. An Overview
- Since January 9, 1979, Buckeye has requested Dayton P & L to establish six separate additional delivery points on behalf of its members pursuant to the terms of the Power Delivery Agreement. Each of the six additional delivery points was requested by Buckeye in order to serve the current and/or prospective load growth of one of its members.
Although Dayton P & L has issued sporadic correspondence regarding Buckeye's requests, to date Dayton P & L.has 1
- / The six delivery points requested by Buckeye are as follows:
Date of Delivery Point Requested Service Request Location Date Buckeye Member 1/9/79 New California 9/79 Union REC 4/24/79 Lake 10/80 later revised to 11/83 Midwest Electric 4/24/79 E. Hollansburg 10/80 Darke REC-4/24/79 Frenchtown 10/80 Darke REC 1/22/80 Waynesfield- late 1980 (to be revised to late '83) United REC 2/19/81 lionda 4/82 Union REC
,, THcM POON, HIN E AND FLCRY '
l Director October 5, 1981 Page Six agreed to fulfill its obligations only with respect to the Ilonda delivery point. Dayton P & L has failed to take any affirmative steps either to establish or acknowledge an intent to establish any of the other five delivery points requested by Buckeye (including even a simple statement that it intends to abide by its commitments under the Power Delivery Agreement).
The Power Delivery Agreement is clear on its face.
That agreement requires the investor-owned utility that can most advantageously provide the necessary transmission service to establish an additional delivery point to serve a 1
Buckeye member at the request.of Buckeye. Under the Power Delivery Agreement, the selected investor-owned utility must provide the necessary transmission lines from its existing transmission lines to connect with a substation constructed by Buckeye or the Buckeye member at the new delivery point.
j Nothing in the Power Delivery Agreement permits the investor-owned utility that is selected by Buckeye to make its own
! independent evaluation regarding the need for the new delivery point. The reason that such a provision is not contained in the Power Delivery Agreement is obvious; if the investor-owned utilities were permitted independently and subjectively to determine the "need" for new delivery points, additional
- e
, ,THOM POCN, HIN E AN D FLomy Director October 5, 1981 Page Seven delivery points would never be established in the State of Ohio unless they provided a clear benefit to the selected investor-owned utilities.
The Power Delivery Agreement is both a contract and a rate schedule that was freely bargained for between Buckeye and its members on the one hand and the investor-owned utilities
~
on the other. Buckeye is pleased to report that the other i
investor-owned utilities who are signatories to the Power Delivery Agreement have, by and large, fulfilled their f s
obligations under that agreement.~*/ Only Dayton P & L has demonstrated a consistent refusal to fulfill its obligations under the Powc Delivery Agreement.
< B. The Honda Delivery Point
- As noted above, the only additional delivery point that I
Dayton P & L has agreed to establish during the past two years is the Honda delivery point. The conduct of Dayton P& L regarding this new delivery point further demonstrates Dayton P & L's anticompetitive behavior. ,
i
- / It should be specifically pointed out that Buckeye has no complaint against the Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company (which is an applicant in this proceeding) with respect-to the establishment'of additional delivery points under the Power Delivery Agreement. While Buckeye has a pending dispute regarding the establishment of additional delivery points with Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (another applicant in this proceeding) that company has provided service during the pendency of-such dispute.
l l
l
THcM POGN, HINE AND FLOOY Director October 5, 1981 Page Eight In late 1980, Honda of America Mfg., Inc. (" Honda")
announced its intention to construct an automobile assembly facility near Marysville, Ohio. The Honda plant is to be completed and operational on or about April 1, 1982. After Honda announced its construction plans, a dispute arose between Dayton P & L and Union Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (" Union"), a Buckeye member, as to which utility had territorial service rights to the territory on which the Honda plant is being constructed. Dayton P & L, Buckeye and Union each understood that this territorial dispute ultimately 1
would be resolved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
("PUCO"). Although there was obviously a question whether 3
Dayton P & L or Union ultimately would be permitted to serve the new Honda plant, there was agreement among Dayton P & L, Union and Buckeye that a new delivery point would be required to serve the Honda plant.
Pursuant to Section 4.3(c) (ii) of the Power Delivery Agreement, on February 19, 1981 Buckeye instructed Dayton
! P& L to establish a new delivery point to serve the Honda plant and, in connection therewith, to construct the transmission facilities necessary to provide transmission service to the new delivery point. Buckeye's selection of Dayton P & L to provide the transmission service to the new delivery point
/' l
, . THCM POCN, HINE AND FLORY Director October 5, 1981 Page Nine was based on the factors set forth in Section 4.4 (a) of the Power Delivery Agreement. Indeed, Dayton P & L was, and is, the utility subject to the Power Delivery Agreement which most advantageously and practicably can provide transmission service to the new delivery point. (A copy of Buckeye's February 19, 1981 letter to Dayton P & L is attached as i
Exhibit B hereto).
By letter dated March 6, 1981 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C hereto), Dayton P & L agreed to establish the requested delivery point. Thereafter, Buckeye and Union each acted in reliance on Dayton P & L's promise to establish the new delivery point to serve the Honda plant.
On July 1, 1980, the PUCO entered an Opinion and Order (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D hereto) which stated that, under Ohio law, the territory on which the Honda plant is being constructed is within the certified service territory of Union.
After the PUCO's decision was announced, Dayton P &L had a sudden change of heart regarding the establishment of the new delivery point to serve the Honda plant. By letter dated July 31, 1981 from Mr. W. C. Shoup, Assistant Vice President Customer Business Operations -of Dayton P & L, Buckeye was advised, for the first time, that Dayton P & L
TH:gM POS N, HIN E AN D Ft.DOY Director October 5, 1981 Page Ten would refuse to honor Buckeye's request for the establishment of the new delivery point to serve the Honda plant. (a copy of Mr. Shoup's letter is attached as Exhibit E hereto).
As a result of Dayton P & L's incredible decision, Buckeye's counsel began to prepare both a complaint asserting violations of federal and state antitrust laws and this Request.
On August 26, 1981, representatives of Buckeye met with Mr. Shoup of Dayton P & L in order to give Dayton P & L an opportunity to reevaluate its decision not to establish the additional delivery point to serve the Honda plant. At this meeting, Buckeye's counsel advised the representatives of Dayton P & L that Buckeye intended to pursue both judicial and administrative remedies to counteract Dayton P & L's anticompetitive behavior.
After the meeting of August 26, 1981, Dayton P & L again had a sudden change of heart and, by letter dated September 4, 1981 (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F), Dayton P & L agreed to establish an additional delivery point to serve the Honda plant. It is the opinion of Buckeye and Buckeye's counsel that Dayton P & L only agreed to establish this delivery point because of a well-placed concern that the failure to establish the requested delivery point would so obviously manifest an anticompetitive attitude that this Commisson would be compelled seriously to
. THSM POON, HINE AND FLSRY Director October 5, 1981 Page Eleven reconsider the fitness of Dayton P & L as a nuclear plant licensee and Dayton P & L would be liable under Federal and State antitrust laws. As will be explained more fully below, however, Dayton P & L's agreement to supply one delivery point -
does not alter the underlying trend of anticompetitive activity nor the need for this Commission to evaluate and consider remedies for Dayton P & L's anticompetitive conduct.
III. Anticompetitive Impact of Dayton P & L's Conduct buckeye believes that Dayton P & L's prior refusal to establish the additional delivery point necessary to serve the Honda plant was based on two anticompetitive factors:
first, by refusing to construct the additional delivery point, Dayton P & L could virtually assure that Union would be unable adequately to serve the Honda plant and that Dayton P & L would be asked to replace Union as the provider of electricity t' that plant; second, even if Union could i
somehow manage to provide electricity to the Honda plant, the delays and embarrassments to Union caused by Dayton P & L's refusal to establish the additional delivery point would serve as.a stern warning to any company contemplating the construction of a plant in the State of Ohio not to locate in an area served by a rural electric cooperative.
Although the refusal to establish the delivery point requested for the Honda plant is the most dramatic of the l
. THe,M PDoN, HIN E AN D FLOGY Director i October 5, 1981 Page Twelve six instances of Dayton P & L's willful breach of its obligations under the Power Delivery Agreement, the other five instances also demonstrate an anticompetitive purpose. The Honda delivery point is more dramatic only because Dayton P & L could have directly benefitted financially by serving the Honda plant had Union been unable to do so. However, in each of the instances of Dayton P & L's refusal to establish l requested delivery points, Dayton P & L is demonstrating, clearly and unequivocally, that new business and industry 3
dare not take the risk of locating in areas to be served by rural electric cooperatives. Dayton P & L is sending a loud signal to the business community that it is far safer for new plant and industrial facilities to be located in territories .
served by investor-owned utilities such as Dayton P & L.
Only by locating in areas served by investor-owned utilities can a prospective customer be assured that necessary transmission facilities will be provided to serve that customer.
Under Ohio law, electric utilities in the State of Ohio can only really compete by inducing new customers to locate in their service areas. Absent the Power Delivery Agreement, the Buckeye members would be at an absolute disadvantage in J
. _ m _ ._.
. THgM POcN, HIN E AND Ft.c.7y Director October 5, 1981 Page Thirteen this competition since they lack the transmission facilities necessary to guarantee adequate service to new customers.
If the customer locates in a territory served by a rural electric cooperative, the customer will be at the mercy of the investor-owned utilities for the provision of transmission service. Only the Power Delivery Agreement assures that rural electric cooperatives in the State of Ohio can compete on a near-equal footing with the large investor-owned utilities.
From an antitrust standpoint, Dayton P & L's conduct constitutes an abuse of monopoly power. Dayton P & L is in a position to freighten prospective customers from locating in various areas served by Buckeye members because, in certain sections of Ohio, Dayton P & L owns virtually 100% of the transmission facilities that could feasibly serve those Buckeye member territories. Although Dayton P & L's monopoly position in the ownership and control of electric power transmission facilities in such areas may have been obtained lawfully, Dayton P & L's refusal to make these transmission facilities and necessary interconnections available to dependent Buckeye members constitutes a flagrant abuse of Dayton P& L's monopoly power. The Power Delivery Agreement was
. T,H z,M P:C N, HIN E AND FL%:V Director October 5, 1981 Page Fourteen designed, in part, to assure that large investor-owned utilities in the State of Ohio could not abuse their respective monopolies over the control and ownership of transmission facilities. However, Dayton P & L's consistent course of conduct over the past two years, culminating in the refusal to establish the Honda plant delivery point, manifests a clear intent to make a mockery of those provisions of the Power Delivery Agreement that are specifically designed to assur e and protect competition between the large investor-owned utilities and the small rural electric cooperatives.
As noted above, Dayton P & L suddenly agreed to construct the delivery point requested by Buckeye to serve the Honda plant only after Buckeye made it known to Dayton P & L that Buckeye intended to pursue this Request before the NRC, Undoubtedly recognizing that its refusal to establish the Honda delivery point constituted an obvious and egregious example of its anticompetitive behavior, Dayton P & L reluctantly agreed to establish this one delivery point. However, Buckeye does not believe that a two year pattern of anticompetitive behavior, which reached its zenith only a few short weeks ago, should now be ignored by the NRC because Dayton P & L has suddenly agreed, in its own self-interest, to provide one out of six requested delivery points. It is more than an ephemeral fear, indeed there is a substantal likelihood,
. T,Hqw p SN HIN E AN D FLCUY Director October 5, 1981 Page Fifteen that once Dayton P & L has crossed the hurdle of this licensing proceeding, Dayton P & L will immediately revert to its anticompetitive pattern. Indeed, continuing efforts by Buckeye and its counsel between the time of the Dayton P & L agreement on September 4, 1981, to provide the Honda delivery point and the date of this filing (October 5, 1981) have not only failed to elicit agreement from Dayton P & L to abide by the terms of the Power Delivery Agreement but have failed to obtain even a discussion of the matter. This failure of Dayton P & L to respond to Buckeye's continuing requests for clarification of intent with respect to supplying the other requested delivery points as well as additional delivery points in the future amply justifies Buckeye's concern. So long as Dayton P & L violates the express terms of the Power Delivery Agreement, Buckeye members will not be able to compete with Dayton P & L for new customers, particularly industrial and manufacturing facilities.
IV. The Propriety of This Request The foregoing developments deserve to be fully explored and analyzed by the Commission. They fully meet the criteria which the Commission employs in making a "significant change" determination with respect to matters of antitrust significance which have arisen since the last antitrust review. These criteria are "that the change or changes (1) have occurred
, THo,M POON, HIN E AN D FLODY Director October 5, 1981 Page Sixteen since the previous antitrust review of the licensee (s); (2) are reasonably attributable to the licensee (s); and (3) have antitrust. implications that would likely warrant some Commission remedy."-*/
Considering the above criteria in relation to the specific facts which Buckeye has alleged, it is evident that all three of these criteria are met. First, although Dayton P & L's pattern of anticompetitive conduct commenced as early as January, 1979, the anticompetitive purpose of Dayton P & L did not become apparent until July 31, 1981, when Mr. Shoup rejected Buckeye's request for establishment of a new delivery point to serve the Honda plant. Not only is this development so recent as to have occurred since the previous antitrust review, it has also occurred subsequent to the finding-of the Director on July 14, 1981. Thus, the Director
'f did not have access to this information when he made his initial finding that no significant changes had occurred.
Second, it is clear from the information presented in this Request that the activities are reasonably attributable to the licensee, Dayton P & L. l
, */ South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and South Carolina Public Service Authority (Summer Nuclear Station,~ Unit No. 1),
CCI-80-28, 11 NRC'at 824-25.
l
- T,H g* *:CN, HIN E AN D FLORY Director October 5, 1981 Page Seventeen 4
Third, the type of antitrust implications evident from the facts set forth in this letter warrant a clear and unambiguous response from the Commission to ensure against the misuse and abuse of monopoly power by Dayton P & L. It is apparent that Dayton P & L's conduct is designed to climinato Buckeye members as viabic competitors in the provision of electric power to new customers by making it unreasonably risky for new customers to locate in territories served by rural electric cooperatives. Dayton P & L is in a position to carry out this plan because of its monopoly position in the ownership and control of vital transmission facilities.
The course of conduct described above has far reaching -
and ominous implications for rural electric cooperatives as well as municipalities that may, in the future, need access to a Dayton P & L facility, including facilities relating to Zimmer Nuclear Unit 1. Indeed, every rural electric cooperative in Ohio is totally dependent on Dayton P & L (and other investor-owned utilities) to supply indispensable transmission services through its transmission facilities pursuant to the
~ Power Delivery Agreement. The anticompetitive attitude demonstrated by Dayton P & L in its dealings with Buckeye and various of its members should b. of primary concern to the Commission in the-context of this licensing proceeding.
t
. T,HgMP3CN. HINE AND FLomy 4 l Director October 5, 1981 Page Eighteen i
V. Relief Requested Buckeye requests that, as a result of the significant changes since the initial antitrust review in.this proceeding, the Commission conduct a second antitrust review at this stage of the proceeding. Buckeye believes that the precise nature of any remedy in the' form of a license condition which might be imposed in response to the problems presented in this letter is for the Commission to determine after full-and complete evaluation of all of the facts.
The basic thrust of any such remedy,.however, will need to ensure that Dayton P & L will not engage in any future I anticompetitive conduct vis-a-vis Buckeye, the Buckeye members,
! and other utilities dependent on Dayton P & L for transmission service. A primary means to accomplish this, in addition to-whatever additional remedies the Commission might deem appropriate, would be to require Dayton P & L to fulfill its obligations under the Power Delivery Agreement in a complete and. timely manner.
1 l
J
. , - , y- -- -- - --
. JHoMpooN, HINE AND FLony Director October 5, 1981 Page Nineteen l
l Please let us know if you desire any additional information I in this matter.
Respectfully submitted, Robert P. Mone' M ()k T il O M P S O N , IIINE AND FLORY 100 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio (614) 461-6060
/r --%1 Rob ~ert C. Goodwin, Jr.
Orl Charles L. Freed TilOMPSON , IIINE AND FLORY 1920 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-8800 Attorneys for Buckeye Power, Inc.
- _ _ _ _ _ - - - - . _ _ _-