ML16341F926
| ML16341F926 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1990 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341F925 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9101040091 | |
| Download: ML16341F926 (4) | |
Text
7590-01 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS.
50-275A AND 50-323A PACIFIC GAS
& ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by Petition of November 19, 1990, the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), requested that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, take action with regard to Pacific Gas
& Electric Company's (PG&E's, the licensee's)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The Petition requests that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issue an order to show cause why PG&E's licenses for those facilities should not be modified, suspended, revoked, or other appropriate action taken.
The Petition is in response to PG&E's September 28, 1990, reply to the NRC's Notice of Violation (NOV) issued in conjunction with the June 14, 1990, "Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD-90-3) in response to NCPA's Petitions of December 4, 1981, and August 1, 1984 pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206).
In the June 14, 1990, NOV, the NRC cited PG&E for violating the conditions of the Diablo Canyon antitrust license known as the Stanislaus Commitments.
PG&E denies it has violated its license conditions.
PG&E contests certain findings in the NOV as either erroneous or contrary to the federal district court decision upon which the NOV is based, and states that it will not take corrective action for violations found by that court pending appeal of U.S.
v Pacific Gas and Electric Com an, 714 F. Supp.
1039 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
~~0>oe009S 90>am~
PDR ADOCI( 05000275 N
t
The Petition asserts as grounds for this request that the licensee has violated the following Stanislaus Commitments:
(1) Article 9, by failing to file service schedules and inserting in those schedules that PGSE did file "as filed" provisions that restrict parties from contesting and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from freely ruling on the rates,
- terms, conditions, and practices contained in the schedules; (2) Article 7(a),
by interpreting it to require PG&E only to negotiate in good faith with "Neighboring Entities," to file rate schedules with FERC, and to commence service only after agreement upon all terms and conditions of interconnection, instead of filing unexecuted service agreements; (3) Articles 6, by refusing to supply partial requirements power to NCPA and to six cities in 1982 on the excuse that PGAE's power supply contracts with the six cities were full requirements contracts; and (4) Articles 7(a) and 7(d), by failing to provide transmission to NCPA and Healdsburg in the summer of 1982.
The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
As provided by Section 2.206, the NRC wi 11 take appropriate action on this request within a reasonable time.
A copy of the Petition is available for inspection in the Commission's Public Document
- Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the local public document room, California Polytechnic State University, Robert E.
Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st'day of December, 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Murley, ctor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
t I