ML19254D491
| ML19254D491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1979 |
| From: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hoyt G ANAHEIM, CA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910260069 | |
| Download: ML19254D491 (2) | |
Text
fetll N
o UNITED STATES g
[
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 g
j
%...../
Docket Nos. 50-361 A 50-362A Mr. Gordon W. Hoyt Utilities Director P. O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803
Dear Mr. Hoyt:
SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS N0. 2 AND NO. 3 The NRC staff is currently reviewing the operating license applications for the captioned nuclear units to see if any antitrust related significant changes have occurred since the previous construction permit review.
This was or will snortly be noticed in the Federal Register inviting comments from interested parties (copy attached).
There are specfic questions we have of Anaheim as follows which we would appreciate if Anaheim could answer.
1.
In your March 24, 1978 letter to Mr. R. L. Myers of Southern California Edison, you stated that the California Energy Resources Conservation ar.d Development Commission in reporting to the Legislature had suggested that the participants in the proposed Sundesert Nuclear Project purchase from Edison an interest in the Lucerne Valley Project.
Please provide any documentation or other basis that would have suggested to the Energy Commission that Edison would offer or allow participation in Lucerne.
2.
In October,1976, you wrote to Mr. K. L. Turley, President of Arizona Public Service Company, expressing an interest to participate in an amount of 50 MW in each of the Palo Verde Nuclear Units 1, 2, and 3, together with the related transmission lines to Calfiornia.
What response did Anaheim receive? What transmission alternatives did Anaheim consider other than joint ownership with Southern California Edison? What are the reasons that Anaheim did not ultimately choose to participate in the Palo Verde units? Under what conditions, if any, would Anaheim have choosen to participate in the units? Under what conditions, if any, would Arizona Public
'^
9 043 331026u M T
4 Mr. Gordon W. Hoyt Service Company.have permitted Anaheim to participate in the units?
Do you know why LADWP chose to participate in the units, whereas Anaheim did not? Do you know LADWP's arrangements for transmission from Palo Verde to California?
3.
Has Anaheim taken any services under its Integrated Operations Agreement (10A) and associated agreements with Edison? If not, why not? If so, has Anaheim experienced any particular difficulties?
Did any outside engineering or economic consultants assist Anaheim in working out the terms and conditions of the 10A and related agreements? Have the terms and conditions of the 10A and related agreements been interpreted as Anaheim initially understood them?
If not, what changes in the interpretation have occurred?
4.
Are there any other matters that you are aware of that you think that the NRC staff should consider in its review as to whether antitrust related significanc changes have occurred in Edison's activities?
Please respond at your earliest opportunity.
S.ncerely, Argil Toalston, Chief Power Supply Analysis Section Antitrust and Indemnity Group Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Spiegel and McDiarmid
'~ 9 044
t
(.
r-
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OPERATING LICENSES UNDER ANTITRUST REVIEW TIME FOR SUBMISSIQ OF VIEWS ON ANTITRUST MATTERS The Commission has recently delegated authority and approved procedures for the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to review operating license applications to determine whether there have been "significant changes" in a licensee's activities or proposed activities subsequent to the previous antitrust review under Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5 2135c(2) in connection with the construction permit application.
The following operating license applicationr are currently under antitrust review:
Susquehanna 1 and 2 Pennsylvania Power & Light Allegheny Electric Cooperative Docket Nos. 50-387A and 50-388A cps authorized 11/2/73 San Onofre 2 and 3 Southern California Edison Docket Nos. 50-361A and 50-362A cps authorized 10/18/73
'"')
045 Grand Gulf 1 and 2 Mississippi Power and Light Docket Nos. 50-416A and 50-417A cps authorized 5/3/74
'knum
C C
.. Waterford 3 Louisiana Power & Light Docket No. 50-382A CP authorized 5/14/74 Bellefonte 1 and 2 Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-438A and 50-439A cps authorized 9/17/74 Bryan 1 and 2 Commonwealth Edison Docket Nos. 50-459A and 50-455A cps authorized 12/13/74 Braidwood 1 and 2 Commonwealth Edison Docket Nos. 50-456A and 50-457A cps authorized 1/13/75 Operating license applications and antitrust infonnation in response to NRC's Regulatory Guide 9.3 have been submitted for the above named plants. This information and additional material st.bmitted in response to additional staff questions on San Onofre, Waterford, Susquehanna, and Grand Gulf are available in the respective local public document rooms and in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
On completion of staff antitrust review of each of the above-named applications, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will issue an initial finding as to whethee there have been "significant changes" under Section 105c(2) of the Act.
A copy of this finding will be published
'~'9 046
C O
.. in the Federal Register and will be sent to the Washington and local public document rooms and to those persons providing comments or infonnation in response to this notice.
If the initial finding concludes that there have not been any significant changes, requests for reevaluation may be submitted for a period of 60 days after the date of the Federal Register notice. The results of any reevaluations that are requested, will also be published in the Fe al Register and copies sent to the Washington and local public document rooms.
Any person who wishes to have his views considered with respect to significant changes related to antitrust matters which have occurred in the licensee's activities since the construction permit antitrust reviews for the above named plants should submit such views to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Group, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, on or before (30 days).
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Jerome Saltzman, Chief f Antitrust and Indemnity Group Office of Nuclear Reagtor Regulation
'^'9 047