ML19261F378
| ML19261F378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf, Byron, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Waterford, San Onofre, Bellefonte  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1979 |
| From: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ross E RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261F379 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910260046 | |
| Download: ML19261F378 (1) | |
Text
Tun f
o,,
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55 g
j OCT 18 1979
+
, g,,,,
Docket Nos. 50-361A 50-362A Mr. Everett C. Ross Public Uti1' ties Director City of Riverside Public Utilities Department 3900 Main Street Riverside, California 92501
Dear Mr. Ross:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS NO. 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 shortly be noticed in the Federal Register inviting comments from interested parties (copy attached).
There are specific questions we have of Riverside as follows which we would appreciate if Riverside could answer.
1.
On January 21, 1977, you wrote to Mr. Robert L. Myers of the Southern California Edison Company expressing an interest in participating in ;he Palo Verde Nuclear Plants and inquiring of Edison as to the availability of transmission from the plant.
Were any transmission alternatives considered other than the one with Edison? If so, what was considered? If not, why not? What are the reasons that Riverside did not ultimately choose to participate in the Palo Verde Plant? Under what conditions, if any, would Riverside have chosen to participate in the nuclear plant? Under what conditions, if any, would the Arizona Public Service Company have permittted Riverside to participate in the plant?
2.
Has Riverside taken any services under its Integrated Operations Agreement (I0A) and associated agreements with Edison? If not, why not?
If so, has Riverside experienced any particular difficulties?
Did any outside engineering or economic consultants assist Riverside in working out the terms and conditions of the I0A and related agreements? Have the terms and conditions of the 10A and related agreements been interpreted as Riverside initially understood them?
If not, what changes in the interpretation have occurred?
- '" 7 295 w_
y9102ts00 %;
Mr. Everett C. Ross OCT 18 1979 3.
Are there any other matters that you are aware of that you think that NRC staff should consider in its review as to whether antitrust related significant changes have' occurred in Edison's activities?
Please respond at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely, js/ A.1-Mauu Argil Toalston, Chief Power Supply Analysis Section Antitrust and Indemnity Group Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclousre:
As stated cc:
Spiegel and McDiarmid
7 296