Text

Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
	ML100810441
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/22/2010
From:	Curran D; Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
To:	; NRC/SECY
	SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML100810439	List: ML100810440; ML100810441; ML100810442;
References
	50-275-LR, 50-323-LR
	Download: ML100810441 (49)
	v • d • e

March 22, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275-LR Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 50-323-LR Units 1 and 2 REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE BY SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE I.

INTRODUCTION In accordance with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) hearing notice, 75 Fed. Reg. 3,493 (January 21, 2010), and pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(f), San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) files this Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene in the license renewal proceeding for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP).

II.

DEMONSTRATION OF STANDING SLOMFP has been a participant in NRC licensing cases involving DCNPP since 1973.

The organization has standing to intervene in this case because many of its members live, work, and own property within 50 miles of the plant, and their interests may be affected by the results of the proceeding. Their health, safety, property value, and means of livelihood could be adversely affected by a licensing decision which permitted DCNPP to continue to operate for an extended period in a manner that is unsafe or harmful to the environment. For instance, if an accident and consequent offsite radiation release were to occur at DCNPP, the health, safety, property value, and means of livelihood of neighbors of the plant, including members of SLOMFP, could be seriously harmed. SLOMFP has attached declarations from four individual members who have authorized SLOMFP to bring this legal action on their behalves. See

2 Declaration of Elizabeth Apfelberg (Exhibit 1A), Declaration of Elaine Holder (Exhibit 1B),

Declaration of Lucy Jane Swanson (Exhibit 1C) and Declaration of Jill ZamEk (Exhibit 1D).

III.

CONTENTIONS SLOMFPs contentions are set forth below. Section A contains SLOMFPs safety contention (labeled with the prefix TC). Section B contains SLOMFPs environmental contentions (labeled with the prefix EC).

A.

Safety Contentions Contention TC 1 - Failure to demonstrate adequacy of program for management of aging equipment

1. Statement of the Contention: The applicant, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), has failed to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 54.29s requirement to demonstrate a reasonable assurance that it can and will manage[e] the effects of aging on equipment that is subject to the license renewal rule, i.e., safety equipment without moving parts. In particular, PG&E has failed to show how it will address and rectify an ongoing pattern of management failures with respect to the operation and maintenance of safety equipment.

2. Brief Summary of Basis for the Contention: The NRCs standard for license renewal, 10 C.F.R. § 54.29(a), states that an operating license may be renewed if the Commission finds, among other things, that:

(a) Actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to the matters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the CLB [current licensing basis], and that any changes made to the plants CLB in order to comply with this paragraph are in accord with the Act and the Commissions regulations. These matters are:

(1) managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified to require review under § 54.21(a)(1).

3 In Appendix B of its license renewal application, PG&E describes its program for managing the aging equipment that is subject to the license renewal rule under 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1). As explained on page B-4, during the license renewal term, PG&E will use the same personnel to manage aging equipment that are described in the Final Safety Analysis Report for DCNPP, i.e., that PG&E currently uses. PG&Es aging management program is deficient because it does not discuss how it will avoid repeating the chronic and significant errors it is currently committing in the management of safety equipment at DCNPP.

Examples of these errors are provided in recent integrated inspection reports: Diablo Canyon Power Plant NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000275/2008005, 05000323/2008005 AND 07200026/2008001 (February 6, 2008) (IIR 08-05) (ADAMS Accession No. ML090370406); Diablo Canyon Power Plant NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000275/2009003 and 05000323/2009003 (August 5, 2009) (IIR 09-03) (ADAMS Accession No. ML092170781); Diablo Canyon Power Plant NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000275/2009005 and 05000323/2009005 (February 3, 2010) (IIR 09-05) (ML100341199).

These inspection reports document an ongoing failure of PG&E to properly identify, evaluate, and resolve problems and manage safety equipment. For example:

In IIR-08-05, the NRC inspectors reported on their semi-annual trend review of PG&Es corrective action program and associated documents to identify trends that could indicate the existence of a more significant safety issue. Id., Enclosure at 24. The inspectors found an adverse trend in problem evaluation, concluding that:

PG&E used less than adequate thoroughness when evaluating problems resulting in the failure to identify the extent of conditions; and in some cases, adverse affects (sic) on the operability of Technical Specification required equipment.

4 This adverse trend began during the fourth quarter 2007 and continued through the fourth quarter 2008.

Id. at 24. The inspectors provided 11 separate examples of this adverse trend.

Id. at 24-25.

In IIR 09-03, the inspectors semi-annual trend review found that the adverse trend in problem evaluation identified in IIR-08-05 continued during the first two quarters of 2009. Id., Enclosure at 21. The inspectors:

analyzed this trend and identified a common theme related to poor licensee management of the plant design/licensing bases and inconsistent implementation of regulatory administrative processes. The inspectors concluded that some issues identified in the trend could indicate the existence of a more significant concern affecting the NRCs ability to regulate the license.

Id. The inspectors then identified thirteen separate examples of instances of poor licensing and design basis management and five instances of deficiencies related to other administrative functions. Examples include:

Failure to perform an adequate 50.59 evaluation for spent fuel pool special test This minor violation illustrated the licensees failure to implement the industry 50.59 program

Failure to perform an adequate 50.59 evaluation for modifications to the special protection scheme for the 500 kV switchyard This minor violation illustrated the licensees failure to implement the industry 50.59 program

An inadequate 50.59 evaluation for the Unit 1 containment sump modification This violation illustrated a failure to understand when prior NRC approval is required for change to the facility as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report Update.

Violation of the station 50.59 evaluation procedure This finding illustrated the failure of the licensee to recognize a condition outside of the plant design basis associated with an explosive mixture of oxygen and hydrogen discovered in the Unit 2 reactor coolant drain tank, waste gas surge tank, and interconnecting piping.

Violation of design control associated with the failure to maintain adequate capacity and capability of the emergency diesel generators. This finding

5 illustrated the failure of the licensee to understand and apply the plant design and licensing basis to onsite emergency power system.

NRC inspectors also noted an Adverse Trend in Design Margin and Capability of ac Power Systems in this report, affecting all three of the plant ac power systems. Id.,

Enclosure at 24.

In IIR-09-05, once again the NRC inspectors found that adverse trends associated with the thoroughness of Pacific Gas and Electrics program evaluation, originally identified by the NRC in September 2008 [in IIR008-05] continued through 2009. Id., Enclosure at 35. Although IIR-09-05 describes various efforts by PG&E to correct the adverse trend, the NRC inspectors remained dissatisfied with the comprehensiveness of PG&Es analyses and corrective actions. Id. at 36-37.

The inspection reports cited above raise a genuine and material dispute regarding PG&Es ability to manage the effects of aging into the renewal period. The public has no reason for confidence that a renewed Diablo Canyon licensee would reasonably ensure protection of public health and safety. PG&E has shown that it cannot adequately identify, evaluate, and resolve maintenance problems involving safety equipment and systems.

3. Demonstration that the Contention is Within the Scope of the Proceeding: This contention is within the scope of the proceeding because it raises questions about the adequacy of PG&Es program for managing aging equipment under NRC regulations that must be satisfied before DCNPP can be re-licensed.

4. Demonstration that the Contention is Material to the Findings NRC Must Make to Re-License Diablo Canyon: Before the NRC may re-license DCNPP, it must conclude that PG&E can manage the effects of aging on passive equipment. Because PG&E has demonstrated

6 a consistent pattern of inadequate management of safety equipment, the contention is material to the findings that NRC must make in reviewing PG&Es operating license renewal application.

5. Concise Statement of the Facts or Expert Opinion Supporting the Contention, Along With Appropriate Citations to Supporting Scientific or Factual Materials: The facts which support Contention TC-1 are set forth in paragraph 2 above. The facts are reported in Appendix B of PG&Es operating license renewal application and in NRC inspection reports, to which SLOMFP has provided citations.

B.

Environmental Contentions

1.

Statutory and Regulatory Background The core requirement of NEPA is that for any federal action with a significant adverse effect on the human environment, federal agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) which includes a detailed statement regarding:

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, 149 F.3d at 1020 (citing Dept. of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 756 (2004), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)). NRC regulations also require that an NRC application for operating license renewal must be supported by an environmental report prepared by the applicant (10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c) and a supplemental EIS prepared by the NRC Staff. 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c). In discussing alternatives to the proposed action, the applicant must discuss alternatives to mitigate severe accidents. 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(iii)(L). The NRC must also discuss mitigative alternatives in its supplemental EIS. 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c)(2).

7 In addition, an Environmental Report or EIS must also address new and significant information that was not previously addressed in an EIS for the facility. 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.53(c)(iv), 51.92(a)(2).

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated regulations for the implementation of NEPA that are entitled to substantial deference by the NRC. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1124 (2007)

(citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 355, (1989); Andrus v.

Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979)). Among those regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 requires that:

When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking.

(a) If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement.

(b) If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement:

1.

A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable.

2.

a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment;

3.

a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment, and

4.

the agencys evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the purposes of this section, reasonably foreseeable includes impacts which have

8 catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason.

As the CEQ explained in promulgating 10 C.F.R. § 1502.22, the overall cost of providing complete information includes the timing of the information: CEQ intends that the term overall costs encompasses financial costs and other costs such as costs in terms of time (delay) and personnel. National Environmental Policy Act Regulations; Incomplete or Unavailable Information, 51 Fed. Reg. 15,618, 15,622 (April 25, 1986).

2.

Contentions Contention EC-1: Failure of SAMA Analysis to Include Complete Information About Potential Environmental Impacts of Earthquakes and Related SAMAs

1. Statement of Contention: PG&Es Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analysis fails to satisfy 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 because it is not based on complete information that is necessary for an understanding of seismic risks to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and because PG&E has failed to acknowledge the absence of the information or demonstrated that the information is too costly to obtain. As a result of PG&Es failure to use complete information, the SAMA analysis does not satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for consideration of alternatives (see Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1519-20 (9th Cir. 1992)) or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

9

2. Brief Summary of Basis for the Contention:

a. Factual Background In 2008, PG&E informed the NRC that it had identified a zone of seismicity that may indicate a previously unknown fault located offshore of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which is known as the Shoreline Fault. NRC Research Information Letter 09-001, Preliminary Deterministic Analysis of Seismic Hazard at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from Newly Identified Shoreline Fault at 10-11 (April 8, 2009) (RIL-09-001) (ADAMS Accession No. ML090330523). The fault was identified as a result of a collaborative research program conducted jointly by PG&E and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) under the Collaborative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). Id. As described in RIL-09-0001, the PG&E-USGS research program focused on increasing the understanding of tectonics in the region of the DCNPP, and included both new geophysical field studies and the application of advanced seismological techniques to small-magnitude recorded earthquakes. Id.

While describing the fault as hypothesized and potential (id.), PG&E and the NRC Staff both immediately took actions to address the significance of the newly discovered fault.

First, both PG&E and the NRC Staff undertook assessments to determine whether the fault posed any hazard to the ongoing operation of DCNPP that had not been previously taken into consideration. Id. These analyses were deterministic in nature and were based on the preliminary information that had been yielded to date by the PG&E-USGS research program.

Id.

Second, PG&E worked with the USGS to reallocate resources to characterize the Shoreline Fault rather than retaining the original focus that is more regional in nature. Id. at 3.

10 At the end of 2008, PG&E issued an Action Plan to carry out this reallocation effort. Id. As described in the Action Plan document:

The Plan has three objectives. The first objective is to characterize the Shoreline fault in terms of its location, geometry, activity rate, rupture characteristics, and relation to the Hosgri fault zone.1 The second objective is to evaluate the ancient (Tertiary) shear zone west of the power block structure for evidence of secondary deformation that may have been associated with the Shoreline fault. The third objective is to estimate potential ground motions from the Shoreline fault, including both independent rupture of the Shoreline fault and possible synchronous rupture with the Hosgri fault.

Action Plan,Section I at 1 (December 17, 2008) (ADAMS Accession No. ML090720505).

With respect to the schedule for implementation of the Action Plan, PG&E stated that it would complete a report on these issues by the fourth quarter of 2010. Id.,Section VII at 6.

PG&E also stated that:

An updated evaluation of the seismic hazard at DCPP will be conducted by PG&E Geosciences as part of the Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) hazard update, which is scheduled to be completed in 2011. PG&E Geosciences and their consultants will perform the majority of the work; as part of the CRADA, the USGS will perform the balance of their marine magnetic survey and evaluate additional seismicity data in the region.

Id.,Section I at 1.2 In April 2009, the NRC Staff issued RIL-09-0001 for the purpose of describing PG&Es and the Staffs Preliminary Deterministic Analyses of the Shoreline Fault. Id. at 1. The Staff explained that while the NRC is currently using probabilistic methods to license new reactors (id.

at 3, citing 10 C.F.R. § 1000.23), it had used a deterministic approach to evaluate the safety implications of the Shoreline Fault due to the limited and preliminary nature of the required 1 The NRC considers the Hosgri fault to be the controlling fault for the DCPP design. RIL-09-0001 at 2.

2 The NRC Staff noted its approval of the Action Plan in Memorandum to File from Alan Wang re: Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2 - Review of Potential New Fault at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site (November 5, 2009) (ADAMS Accession No. ML093080508).

11 probabilistic input parameters. Id.3 In addition, the Staff noted that a deterministic approach was in keeping with the deterministic design basis for the facility. Id. (citing 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A).

Although RIL-09-0001 focused on PG&Es and the Staffs preliminary assessment of the Shoreline Fault with regard to the operability of DCPP, the Staff explained that in the future it intended to conduct probabilistic analyses of the information gathered under the CRADA program:

The CRADA program is expected to provide significant new information regarding the larger tectonic picture of the area. The NRC staffs initial assessment was deterministic, consistent with the design basis of the facility. Currently, probabilistic methods are available to more accurately characterize the hazard of the region surrounding the site.

Further, regional moment balancing could also more accurately characterize the regional hazard, both independently and as part of a probabilistic hazard assessment. As more information becomes available (such as the slip rate of the potential Shoreline Fault or any additional information about the Hosgri Fault), the NRC staff expects to evaluate the regional seismic hazard and perform a probabilistic study, when the available data is sufficient.

Id. at 10-11 (emphasis added).

On January 20, 2010, the NRC issued a report summarizing a January 5, 2010, meeting with PG&E regarding the Shoreline Fault. Summary of January 5, 2010, Meeting With Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Meeting Summary) (ADAMS Accession No. ML100130753).

3 RIL-09-0001 is rife with disclaimers about the preliminary nature of the information relied on the Staff for its operability analysis. For example, it:

refers to PG&Es preliminary assessment that the hazard potential of the Shoreline Fault is bounded by the current review ground motion spectrum for the facility. Id. at 1.

refers to the initial information provided by PG&E and the USGS. Id.

states that this work is based on the limited preliminary information currently available to the NRC Staff. Id.

describes the PG&E-USGS investigation as recently begun. Id. at 2.

describes its interpretations of data as preliminary. Id.

States that although the quality of the preliminary data is high and the data sets provide a consistent picture, the picture is also blurry. Id.

12 While both PG&E and the NRC Staff had previously referred to the Shoreline Fault as potential or hypothetical, the Meeting Summary dropped those adjectives and referred to the fault as newly identified. Id. at 1. The NRC Staff reported that the Shoreline fault study had determined that:

1.

The microseismicity is a real feature,

2.

The Shoreline fault zone has 3 segments,

3.

The Shoreline fault is a vertical, strike-slip fault which is consistent with the earlier assumptions, and

4.

The Shoreline fault is 300 meters from the intake structure and 600 meters from the power block as compared to the 1,000 meters previously assumed.

Id. at 1. The Staff reported its conclusion that this updated information had not changed its determination that the Hosgri fault is bounding with respect to the safety of operating DCPP.

In addition, the Staff reported that PG&E had performed additional analysis showing that damage due to secondary faulting is very unlikely and the impact on the DCPP seismic core damage frequency is negligible. Id. at 2.

Like the Action Plan, the Meeting Summary reported that under the current schedule, PG&E would complete the Shoreline fault study by the end of 2010. Id. at 2. Reporting on the broader regional study that had commenced in 2007, the Meeting Summary stated that:

The rest of the tectonic modeling for the central California region is due to be complete in 2012. Barbara Bryon (sic) from the California Energy Commission (CEC) asked if three-dimensional imaging studies as recommended by the CEC are going to be performed.

PG&E stated it is looking into the funding for this project, and, if funded, would extend the central California study until 2013.

Id. at 1-2.

PG&Es SAMA analysis acknowledges that both fire and seismic contributors are disproportionately dominant when compared to all external events. Environmental Report at

13 F-65. But nowhere in the SAMA analysis, including twenty pages of description of the Diablo Canyon PRA and its updates (id. at F F-23), does PG&E mention the Shoreline Fault or the Shoreline Fault study.

Elsewhere in the Environmental Report, PG&E does acknowledge the existence of the potential Shoreline Fault (id. at 5-2 and 5 5-5), but it does not discuss its own ongoing study of the fault. Instead, the discussion is limited to descriptions of PG&Es and the Staffs preliminary deterministic analyses in support of their operability determinations (i.e., PG&Es initial evaluation of the potential ground motion levels at DCPP from the hypothesized fault and the NRC Staffs preliminary independent review of possible implications of the potential Shoreline Fault to DCPP using the initial information provided by USGS through PG&E).

Environmental Report at 5-4. PG&E also mentions that PG&E has been collaborating with the USGS to collect and analyze new geological, geophysical, and seismic data to develop improved tectonic models for the central California coastal region through the Collaborative Research and Development Agreement (id. at 5-4) -- but never acknowledges that the collaborative study was accelerated and re-focused on the Shoreline Fault or that PG&E has an NRC-approved Action Plan for completing the study.

b. Discussion NRC regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that PG&E must address alternatives for mitigating severe accidents or SAMAs in its Environmental Report. CEQ regulation 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 also requires that where information is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, the Environmental Report must be based on information that is complete, or its absence must be acknowledged and justified. Only if the overall costs of obtaining information are exorbitant can PG&E omit essential information. Id.

14 PG&Es SAMA analysis is inadequate to satisfy NEPA or its implementing regulations because PG&Es consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives is based on incomplete information about earthquake risks at Diablo Canyon, and because PG&E fails to acknowledge that it can obtain complete information by simply waiting for the completion of the information.

PG&E appears to believe that it could lawfully rely on its preliminary and deterministic operability analysis to eliminate the Shoreline Fault from any consideration in its SAMA analysis. Setting aside the question of whether PG&Es operability analysis was legally sufficient under the Atomic Energy to ensure the protection of public safety during DCPPs ongoing operation, the NRCs standard for SAMA analyses is quite different: PRA is the accepted and standard practice in SAMA analyses. Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-23, 64 NRC 257, 340 (2006). In addition, the information collected by PG&E to date is concededly preliminary.

Thus, information sufficient to conduct a probabilistic analysis of the risks posed by the Shoreline Fault is essential to the SAMA, and must be included unless the cost is exorbitant.

40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. In this case, the only cost of obtaining the information is the cost of waiting for completion of the Shoreline Fault study - which has been planned by PG&E since 2008.4 PG&E does not address the cost of waiting for completion of those studies in the Environmental Report, and therefore fails to comply with 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b).

In any event, no justification can be found for PG&Es decision not to await the information. As discussed above, completion of the Shoreline Fault study is scheduled for the end of 2010, and PG&E plans to update its probabilistic LTSP with that information in 2011.

4 As discussed in the Action Plan, PG&E plans to finish the Shoreline Fault study in 2010 and prepare a probabilistic analysis of the Shoreline Fault in 2011. In RIL-09-0001, the Staff does not provide a date for its own probabilistic analysis, but states that it will do so when the data is sufficient.

15 Tectonic modeling and three-dimensional modeling, is scheduled for completion by 2013. Thus it appears that all of the information needed by PG&E to conduct a probabilistic evaluation of the risk of an earthquake in light of the Shoreline Fault will be available by 2013 at the latest. Given that 2013 is more than ten years before PG&Es licenses are due to expire in 2024 and 2025, PG&E has ample time to conduct a SAMA analysis that is based on complete seismic information.5 Moreover, as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has recognized, it makes no economic sense to rush through a license renewal proceeding without adequate information on seismic risks. As stated by the President of the CPUC, PG&Es decision not to include a rigorous and up-to-date seismic study in its license renewal application:

does not allow the CPUC to properly undertake its AB 1632 [California Energy Commissions study, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB1632 Report] obligations to ensure plant reliability, and in turn to ensure grid reliability, in the event Diablo Canyon has a prolonged or permanent outage.

Letter from CPUC President Michael R. Peevey to PG&E President and CEO Peter A. Darbee (June 25, 2009) (copy attached as Exhibit 2). In other words, as CPUC correctly observes, the cost of going forward with an inadequate SAMA analysis is far greater than the cost of waiting until complete information is available.

3. Demonstration that the Contention is Within the Scope of the Proceeding: This contention is within the scope of this proceeding because it relates to the SAMA analysis required by NRC regulations for the re-licensing of Diablo Canyon.

4. Demonstration that the Contention is Material to the Findings NRC Must Make to Re-License Diablo Canyon: The contention is material to the findings the NRC must make 5 The schedules posted on the NRCs webpage for license renewal show that the NRC has not completed any contested license renewal case that lasted more than four years, and the two pending license renewal cases that have now been completed to the stage of Commission review

- Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee - have not taken more than four years to reach the Commission review stage. See http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html

16 to re-license Diablo Canyon because it demonstrates a deficiency in PG&Es Environmental Report which, if left uncured, will undermine the NRCs ability to adequately evaluate measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of severe accidents at DCNPP.

5. Concise Statement of the Facts or Expert Opinion Supporting the Contention, Along With Appropriate Citations to Supporting Scientific or Factual Materials: This contention is based on facts and opinions stated in documents issued by PG&E, the NRC Staff, and the State of California, which are cited in paragraph 2 above.

Contention EC-2: Failure of SAMA Analysis to Address Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Pool Accidents

1. Statement of Contention: PG&Es Environmental Report is inadequate to satisfy NEPA because it does not address the airborne environmental impacts of a reasonably foreseeable spectrum of spent fuel pool accidents, including accidents caused by earthquakes.

2. Brief Summary of Basis for the Contention: In its Environmental Report, PG&E omits any discussion of spent fuel storage impacts because it is a Category 1 issue that was addressed in the 1996 GEIS. Environmental Report at 4-1. Therefore the license renewal GEIS is the appropriate focus of this contention.

In the 1996 License Renewal GEIS, the NRC asserts, with very little discussion, that the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage are small. Id. at 6-83. The 2009 Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS updates the 1996 License Renewal GEIS by addressing additional analyses performed since 1996. Id., § E.3.7, page E E-37. According to the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS, the key document in this regard is NUREG-1738, Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (October 2000),

which examines a range of accident initiating events. Id. at E E-34. These initiating events

17 include seismic events, cask drop, loss of offsite power, internal fire, loss of pool cooling, loss of pool coolant inventory, accidental aircraft impact, and tornado missile. Id. Relying on NUREG-1738, the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS concludes that the health-related environmental impacts of a spent fuel pool accident would be comparable to or lower than the impacts of a reactor accident and are bounded by the 1996 GEIS.

Concededly, however, neither the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS nor NUREG-1738 addresses spent fuel pool accidents outside the eastern and central United States. Id. at E-

33. Moreover, Diablo Canyon is specifically excluded. Id., note 1. As explained in NUREG-1738, western nuclear reactor sites like Diablo Canyon would need to be considered on a site-specific basis because of important differences in seismically induced failure potential of the SFPs [spent fuel pools]. Id. at ix. This conclusion is consistent with PG&Es SAMA analysis for Diablo Canyon, which states that while it is generally reasonable to conclude that the risk of external and internal events are approximately equal, seismic accident risk contributors (along with fire) are disproportionately dominant when compared to all external events. Id. at F-65.

In the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS, the NRC amends NUREG-1738 by stating that recent and more rigorous accident progression analyses, mitigation enhancements, and NRC site evaluations of every SFP in the United States have led it to conclude that the risk of an SFP zirconium fire initiation is expected to be less than reported in NUREG-1738... and previous studies. Id. at E-36. Given that the risk evaluation in NUREG-1738 does not apply to Diablo Canyon, however, this assertion has no meaningful application to Diablo Canyon. And

18 nothing else in the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS indicates that the NRC has re-evaluated the conclusions of NUREG-1738 in light of the seismic risks at Diablo Canyon.6 As stated in NUREG-1738, if a spent fuel pool fire occurred at Diablo Canyon, it could result in high consequences in terms of property damage and land contamination. Id. at A6-26.

The effects of a pool fire also include the societal and economic impacts of relocating large numbers of people: indeed, NUREG-1738s conclusion that latent fatalities would be relatively low is based on the presumption that the people in the area of a nuclear plant will be evacuated and relocated after a pool fire. Id. at A4C-4. The economic consequences of a pool fire could be particularly high for California as the highest-earning agricultural state in the union.7 While it may be possible to relocate people, schools and businesses, it is not possible to relocate fertile farmland. These potential consequences are not discussed in the Environmental Report or any other existing EIS for license renewal.

In order to comply with NEPA, the Environmental Report should contain a complete analysis of the potential for a pool fire at Diablo Canyon. The analysis should consider a full spectrum of potential causes, including seismic contributors. As discussed in Contention EC-3, intentional attacks on the fuel pool should also be included in the spectrum of considered events.

6 The Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS does not state that the NRC site evaluations of every SFP in the United States included an evaluation of earthquake risks to the spent fuel storage pools at Diablo Canyon. Indeed, the content of the site evaluation for Diablo Canyon cannot be determined at all because the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS provides no citation to any site evaluation for Diablo Canyon or any other reactor.

7 See 2007 Census of Agriculture - State Data (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State

_Level/st99_2_002_002.pdf), which shows that 2007 total farm sales in California were over $33 billion, more than 10% of the total farm sales in the entire United States of $297 billion. In the same year, average farm income in California was $418,164, more than three times the national average of $134,807. A copy of the California census data is attached as Exhibit 3.

19 The Environmental Report should also provide a complete analysis of the consequences, including not only health effects but economic and societal effects of widespread land contamination and the need to relocate the population. The Environmental Report should address those impacts, including the health, societal and economic impacts of long-term radiological contamination. In addition, the Environmental Report should address alternatives for avoiding or mitigating those impacts, including the no-action alternative.

3. Demonstration that the Contention is Within the Scope of the Proceeding: This contention is within the scope of the Diablo Canyon license renewal proceeding because it seeks consideration, in the Environmental Report, of information regarding the potentially significant environmental impacts of spent fuel pool accidents that is not considered in the 1996 License Renewal GEIS, that has been identified as new and significant information in the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS, and that is concededly not generic in nature. Nevertheless, because NRC regulations excuse PG&E from considering the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage in this proceeding, SLOMFP seeks a waiver of those regulations. See attached San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Petition for Waiver of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 Subpart A Appendix B and 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2) (March 22, 2010) (Waiver Petition).

4. Demonstration that the Contention is Material to the Findings NRC Must Make to Re-License Diablo Canyon: The contention is material to the findings NRC must make regarding the environmental impacts of re-licensing the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and a reasonable array of alternative measures to avoid or mitigate those impacts, including the no-action alternative. As discussed in the attached Waiver Petition, while the NRC previously made a generic finding about the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage, in this case it is appropriate to make a site-specific finding.

20

5. Concise Statement of the Facts or Expert Opinion Supporting the Contention, Along With Appropriate Citations to Supporting Scientific or Factual Materials: This contention is based on factual information contained in the Environmental Report, NRC documents, and U.S. census data as cited in paragraph 2 above.

Contention EC-3: Failure to Address Environmental Impacts of an Attack on the Diablo Canyon Spent Fuel Pool

1. Statement of contention: The Environmental Report fails to satisfy NEPA because it does not evaluate the environmental impacts of an attack on the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pool during the operating license renewal term.

2. Brief statement of basis for the contention: In the Environmental Report, PG&E does not discuss the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage but instead relies on the 1996 License Renewal GEIS and related regulations. Environmental Report at 4-1. Therefore the GEIS is the appropriate focus of this contention.

As discussed above in Contention EC-2, the Draft Revised GEIS contains significant new information about the risks of spent fuel storage which was not previously considered in the 1996 License Renewal GEIS. While the NRC continues to assert that spent fuel storage impacts are low, it does so based on analyses and mitigation measures that it has never mentioned before.

Mitigation measures relied on by NRC for its conclusion include mitigation enhancements and NRC site evaluations of every SFP in the United States. Id. at E-36. Thus, to some extent, the NRC appears to be relying on site-specific analyses and mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impacts of spent fuel pool attacks. Unfortunately, the NRC does not provide any citations to these references, and thus it is impossible to determine what exactly they consist of.

21 As required by the Commission in Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-08-1, 67 NRC 1, 14-16 (2008),

the NRC must provide identifying information for all reference documents on which it relies, including references to both site-specific and generic analyses and mitigation measures; and it should disclose those portions that are releasable. Assuming those documents confirm that the NRC did indeed rely on site-specific measures for its evaluation of the impacts of attacks on the DCNPP spent fuel pool and appropriate mitigation measures, the Commission should also waive its regulations to permit a site-specific evaluation of the environmental impacts of an attack on the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pool.

3. Demonstration that the Contention is Within the Scope of the Proceeding: This contention is within the scope of the Diablo Canyon license renewal proceeding because it seeks consideration, in the Environmental Report, of information regarding the potentially significant environmental impacts of spent fuel pool accidents that is not considered in the 1996 License Renewal GEIS, that has been identified as new and significant information in the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS, and that is concededly not generic in nature. Nevertheless, because NRC regulations excuse PG&E from considering the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage in this proceeding, SLOMFP seeks a waiver of those regulations. See attached Waiver Petition.

4. Demonstration that the Contention is Material to the Findings NRC Must Make to Re-License Diablo Canyon: The contention is material to the findings NRC must make regarding the environmental impacts of re-licensing the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and a reasonable array of alternative measures to avoid or mitigate those impacts, including the no-action alternative. As discussed in the attached Waiver Petition, while the NRC previously made

22 a generic finding about the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage, in this case it is appropriate to make a site-specific finding.

5. Concise Statement of the Facts or Expert Opinion Supporting the Contention, Along With Appropriate Citations to Supporting Scientific or Factual Materials: This contention is based on factual information contained in the Environmental Report, the 1996 License Renewal GEIS and the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS, as discussed and cited in paragraph 2 above.

Contention EC-4: Failure to Address Environmental Impacts of Attack on Diablo Canyon reactor

1. Statement of Contention: The Environmental Report fails to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it does not discuss the cost-effectiveness of measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of an attack on the Diablo Canyon reactor during the license renewal term.

2. Brief Summary of Basis for the Contention: The NRC has conceded that, for reactors located in the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, it must address the environmental impacts of an attack on any facility it proposes to re-license. Draft GEIS at E E-8 (citing San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC). In its Environmental Report, PG&E relies on an analysis of the impacts of attacks that is presented in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal. Environmental Report at 5-5. See also id. at F-

83. According to PG&E, the GEIS is sufficient to address the impacts of a terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon because it concluded that if an attack were to occur, the Commission would expect that the resultant core damage and radiological releases would be no worse than those

23 expected from internally initiated events. Id. (quoting License Renewal GEIS without a page citation).

The discussion in the License Renewal GEIS that is cited by PG&E is completely inadequate to satisfy NEPA, however, because it does not include any analysis of the relative costs and benefits of measures to avoid or mitigate the effects of an attack. A discussion of mitigative measures is required by NEPA and by NRC regulations that require the analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) in license renewal decisions. 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L). Just as mitigative measures are specific to the types of severe accidents to which a particular reactor design and site are vulnerable, they are also specific to the types of attacks to which the particular reactor design and site are vulnerable.

3. Demonstration that the Contention is Within the Scope of the Proceeding:

The contention is within the scope of the proceeding because (a) the Ninth Circuits decision in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace established that the impacts of attacks on the Diablo Canyon reactor are cognizable under NEPA, (b) an evaluation of mitigation measures is required by NEPA and NRC regulations, and (c) an evaluation of measures to mitigate attacks on nuclear reactors cannot be found in the License Renewal GEIS.

4. Demonstration that the Contention is Material to the Findings NRC Must Make to Re-License Diablo Canyon: The contention is material to the findings NRC must make in order to re-license Diablo Canyon because it demonstrates the absence of legal and factual analyses that are required by NEPA before the NRC may renew the license.

5. Concise Statement of the Facts or Expert Opinion Supporting the Contention, Along With Appropriate Citations to Supporting Scientific or Factual Materials: This

24 contention relies on factual information presented in the Environmental Report and the Draft Revised License Renewal GEIS, as discussed in paragraph 2 above.

IV.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, SLOMFP should be granted intervenor status and its contentions should be admitted.

Respectfully submitted, Electronically signed by Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/328-3500 e-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com March 22, 2010

Exhibit 1A In the matter of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 Units Nos. 1 and 2 Renewal of Operating Licenses DECLARATION OF Elizabeth Apfelberg Under penalty of perjury, I, Elizabeth Apfelberg, declare as follows:

1. My name is Elizabeth Apfelberg, I live at 86 Los Palos Drive, San Luis Obispo, California. My home lies within 20 miles of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (DCNPP).

2. I am a member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize the health and safety of myself and my family, and decrease the value of our property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and intervene on my behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

NAM~~L~

Dated:

In the matter of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 Units Nos. 1 and 2 Renewal of Operating Licenses DECLARATION OF Elizabeth Apfelberg Under penalty of perjury, I, Elizabeth Apfelberg, declare as follows:

1. My name is Elizabeth Apfelberg, I live at 86 Los Palos Drive, San Luis Obispo, California. My home lies within 20 miles of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (DCNPP).

2. I am a member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize the health and safety of myself and my family, and decrease the value of our property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and intervene on my behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

NAM~~L~

Dated:

Exhibit 1B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2 Renewal of Operating Licenses Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 DECLARATION OF ELAINE E. HOLDER Under penalty of perjury, I, Elaine E. Holder, declare as follows:

1. My name is Elaine E. Holder. I live at 274 Cuesta Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405. My home lies within 11 miles of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (DCNPP). I also own a house at1166 Nice Ave, Grover Beach, CA 93433, which lies within 11 miles of Diablo Canyon.

2. I am a member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize my health and safety, and the value of my property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

Because I am 83 and I do not drive, I am also concerned about evacuation plans.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and intervene on my behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

til /} d-e

:...-

'~-zA.-..k.:'~.q£-

NAME UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2 Renewal of Operating Licenses Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 DECLARATION OF ELAINE E. HOLDER Under penalty of perjury, I, Elaine E. Holder, declare as follows:

1. My name is Elaine E. Holder. I live at 274 Cuesta Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405. My home lies within 11 miles of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (DCNPP). I also own a house at1166 Nice Ave, Grover Beach, CA 93433, which lies within 11 miles of Diablo Canyon.

2. I am a member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize my health and safety, and the value of my property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

Because I am 83 and I do not drive, I am also concerned about evacuation plans.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and intervene on my behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

til /} d-e< '~-zA.-..k.

'~.q£-

NAME UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2 Renewal of Operating Licenses Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 DECLARATION OF ELAINE E. HOLDER Under penalty of perjury, I, Elaine E. Holder, declare as follows:

1. My name is Elaine E. Holder. I live at 274 Cuesta Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405. My home lies within 11 miles of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (DCNPP). I also own a house at1166 Nice Ave, Grover Beach, CA 93433, which lies within 11 miles of Diablo Canyon.

2. I am a member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize my health and safety, and the value of my property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

Because I am 83 and I do not drive, I am also concerned about evacuation plans.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and intervene on my behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

til /} d-e< '~-zA.-..k.

'~.q£-

NAME

Exhibit 1C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION I n the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2 Renewal of Operating Licenses Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 DECLARATION OF Lucy Jane Swanson Under penalty of perjury, I, Lucy Jane Swanson, declare as follows:

1. My name is Lucy Jane Swanson. I live at 475 Squire Canyon Road, San Luis Obispo, California. My home lies within 15 miles of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (DCNPP).

2. I am a member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize the health and safety of myself and my family, and the value of our property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and to intervene on my behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

-f v<. A Il-.

~ ".-~

NAM E -'-'---c 7 ;/

C

....-/ '\\..!--'-'t/ '-"-~

Dated:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION I n the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 Renewal of Operating Licenses DECLARATION OF Lucy Jane Swanson Under penalty of perjury, I, Lucy Jane Swanson, declare as follows:

1. My name is Lucy Jane Swanson. I live at 475 Squire Canyon Road, San Luis Obispo, California. My home lies within 15 miles of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (DCNPP).

2. I am a member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize the health and safety of myself and my family, and the value of our property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and to behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

-f v<. A Il-.

~ ".. ~

NAME n'"'-~-C7 i n -,..." c

.. _/'\\..!~'-'t/ '-"-~'---

/

.1

/1')

i'

, I (/ Q.r'./c.j'L Dated:

intervene on my

Exhibit 1D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2 Renewal of Operating Licenses Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 DECLARATION OF Jill ZamEk Under penalty of perjury, I, Jill ZamEk, declare as follows:

1. My name is Jill ZamEk. I live at 1123 Flora Road, Arroyo Grande, CA. My home lies within 25 miles of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP).

2. I am a member and Board Member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize the health and safety of myself and my family, and the value of our property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and intervene on my behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

21/1/10 I

Date P{ease see CaCifomia Notary.ft:c~9Wk4eTll6nt yl!l attaclietf.

f, J",,{ct UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2 Renewal of Operating Licenses Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 DECLARATION OF Jill ZamEk Under penalty of perjury, I, Jill ZamEk, declare as follows:

1. My name is Jill ZamEk. I live at 1123 Flora Road, Arroyo Grande, CA. My home lies within 25 miles of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP).

2. I am a member and Board Member of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).

3. I am concerned that the renewed operation of DCNPP will jeopardize the health and safety of myself and my family, and the value of our property. I am also concerned that the operation of DCNPP will have an adverse effect on the health of the environment in which I live.

5. Therefore, I have authorized SLOMFP to request a hearing and intervene on my behalf in the license renewal proceeding for DCNPP.

21/1/10 I

Date P{ease see CaCifomia Notary.ft:c~9Wk4eTll6nt yl!l attaclietf.

June 25, 2009 Mr. Peter A. Darbee President & Chief Executive Officer Pacific Gas & Electric Company 1 Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Mr. Darbee:

As required by Assembly Bill (AB) 1632 (Blakeslee), the Energy Commission completed a comprehensive assessment of Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and adopted the study, An Assessment of Californias Nuclear Power Plants: AB1632 Report (AB 1632 Report) as part of its 2008 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). This AB 1632 study recommended that the CPUC take certain steps to ensure plant reliability when we review PG&Es license renewal feasibility study for Diablo Canyon. In particular, we need to ensure that we thoroughly evaluate the overall economic and environmental costs and benefits of a license extension for Diablo Canyonespecially in light of the facilitys geographic location vis--vis seismic hazard and vulnerability assessment. As part of this evaluation, PG&E should report on its progress in implementing the AB 1632 Reports recommendation on Diablo Canyon. The CPUC will be looking to the Energy Commissions IEPR for information and input to its license renewal decisions for Diablo Canyon.

It has come to my attention that PG&E does not believe that it should include a seismic study, and other AB 1632 Report recommended studies, as part of its Diablo Canyon license extension studies for the CPUC. Apparently, PG&E bases this position on the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) license renewal application review process does not require that such a study be included within the scope of a license extension application.

That position, however, does not allow the CPUC to properly undertake its AB 1632 obligations to ensure plant reliability, and in turn to ensure grid reliability, in the event Diablo Canyon has a prolonged or permanent outage. Therefore, the Commission directs PG&E to perform the following tasks as part of its license renewal feasibility studies for Diablo Canyon:

1. Report on the major findings and conclusions from Diablo Canyons seismic/tsunami studies, as recommended in the AB 1632 Report (pp. 6, 7, 10 and 13), as well as studies that are directed by any subsequent legislative mandates, Exhibit 2

and report on the implications of these findings and conclusions for the long-term seismic vulnerability and reliability of the plant.

2. Summarize the lessons learned from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant experience in response to the 2007 earthquake and discuss the implications that an earthquake of the same, or greater, magnitude could have on Diablo Canyon. In particular, the Commission needs PG&E to evaluate whether there are any additional pre-planning or mitigation steps that the utility could take for the power plant that could minimize plant outage times following a major seismic event.

3. Reassess the adequacy of access roads to the Diablo Canyon plant and surrounding roadways for allowing emergency personnel to reach the plants and local communities and plant workers to evacuate. This assessment needs to consider todays local population and not rely on the situation extant when the plant was constructed.

4. Conduct a detailed study of the local economic impacts that would result from a shut-down of the nuclear plant and compare that impact with alternate uses of the Diablo Canyon site.

5. Assess low-level waste disposal costs for waste generated through a 20-year plant license extension, including the low-level waste disposal costs for any major capital projects that might be required during this period. In addition, PG&E should include its plans for storage and disposal of low-level waste and spent fuel through decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon plant as well as the cost associated with the storage and disposal.

6. Study alternative power generation options to quantify the reliability, economic and environmental impacts of replacement power options.

7. Include PG&Es responses to nuclear-related data requests and recommendations in future IEPRs.

PG&Es rate case, D. 07-03-044, specifically linked PG&Es license renewal feasibility study for Diablo Canyon to the AB 1632 assessment and PG&E is obligated to address the above itemized issues in its plant relicensing application. This commission will not be able to adequately and appropriately exercise its authority to fund and oversee Diablo Canyons license extension without these AB 1632 issues being fully developed.

Sincerely, Michael R. Peevey President California Public Utilities Commission

294 UNITED STATES 2007 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE - STATE DATA USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service Table 2. Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct Sales: 2007 and 2002

[For meaning of abbreviations and symbols, see introductory text]

Item United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Total sales (see text).......................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Average per farm...................................................dollars, 2007 2002 2007 value of sales:

Less than $1,000 (see text).............................................. farms

$1,000

$1,000 to $2,499............................................................... farms

$1,000

$2,500 to $4,999............................................................... farms

$1,000

$5,000 to $9,999............................................................... farms

$1,000

$10,000 to $19,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$20,000 to $24,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$25,000 to $39,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$40,000 to $49,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$50,000 to $99,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$100,000 to $249,999....................................................... farms

$1,000

$250,000 to $499,999....................................................... farms

$1,000

$500,000 or more............................................................. farms

$1,000 2002 value of sales:

Less than $1,000 (see text).............................................. farms

$1,000

$1,000 to $2,499............................................................... farms

$1,000

$2,500 to $4,999............................................................... farms

$1,000

$5,000 to $9,999............................................................... farms

$1,000

$10,000 to $19,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$20,000 to $24,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$25,000 to $39,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$40,000 to $49,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$50,000 to $99,999........................................................... farms

$1,000

$100,000 to $249,999....................................................... farms

$1,000

$250,000 to $499,999....................................................... farms

$1,000

$500,000 or more............................................................. farms

$1,000 Value of sales by commodity or commodity group:

Crops, including nursery and greenhouse...............farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas.............................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Corn.................................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Wheat..............................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Soybeans.........................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Sorghum..........................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Barley..............................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Rice.................................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Other grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas.........................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 2,204,792 2,128,982 297,220,491 200,646,355 134,807 94,245 688,833 84,357 211,494 350,588 200,302 718,027 218,531 1,552,543 190,402 2,682,120 57,883 1,277,703 107,046 3,367,661 47,686 2,112,835 125,456 8,961,255 147,500 24,212,940 93,373 33,409,883 116,286 218,490,577 570,919 63,223 255,639 422,136 213,326 762,554 223,168 1,577,184 197,967 2,781,507 58,190 1,285,921 109,310 3,438,976 48,596 2,154,772 140,479 10,024,295 159,052 25,401,608 81,694 28,530,105 70,642 124,204,073 986,080 944,656 143,657,928 95,151,954 479,467 485,124 77,215,262 39,957,698 347,540 (NA) 39,909,600 (NA) 159,527 (NA) 10,623,640 (NA) 285,089 (NA) 20,283,986 (NA) 27,142 (NA) 1,651,798 (NA) 18,326 (NA) 701,047 (NA) 6,085 (NA) 2,020,231 (NA) 55,228 (NA) 2,024,959 (NA) 48,753 45,126 4,415,550 3,264,949 90,570 72,352 17,042 2,040 5,540 9,198 5,458 19,369 5,702 40,413 5,217 72,543 1,240 27,238 1,895 58,808 643 28,145 1,287 89,616 1,003 164,905 1,386 536,916 2,340 3,366,360 13,298 1,680 6,260 10,453 6,428 23,068 6,083 42,770 4,203 58,176 1,003 22,113 1,425 44,272 509 22,526 1,246 86,863 1,280 212,895 1,441 529,623 1,950 2,210,510 13,681 11,059 676,987 590,268 2,359 2,195 120,656 62,949 1,856 (NA) 74,138 (NA) 518 (NA) 13,680 (NA) 924 (NA) 29,511 (NA) 88 (NA) 801 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 275 (NA) 2,526 (NA) 686 609 57,019 46,143 83,119 75,768 143 17 88 140 81 279 91 628 72 969 19 413 49 1,505 19 831 47 3,251 40 5,901 18 6,246 19 36,839 127 19 80 119 59 201 96 660 65 916 24 529 31 941 22 982 34 2,282 33 5,210 23 8,308 15 25,977 384 337 24,749 20,543 21 23 587 (D)

(NA)

(NA) 19 (NA) 497 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 5 (NA) 90 (NA) 15,637 7,294 3,234,552 2,395,447 206,852 328,413 7,266 1,103 2,366 3,682 1,721 5,975 1,377 9,415 862 11,632 201 4,413 307 9,542 126 5,531 358 25,023 298 47,690 204 74,022 551 3,036,525 2,538 259 907 1,543 647 2,308 598 4,248 491 6,752 184 4,029 310 9,810 120 5,244 307 22,066 320 49,562 232 82,714 640 2,206,913 4,513 2,576 1,913,014 1,587,775 434 485 117,494 80,408 156 (NA) 40,187 (NA) 200 (NA) 46,107 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 130 (NA) 15,167 (NA) 113 (NA) 11,115 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 72 (NA) 4,917 (NA) 49,346 47,483 7,508,806 4,950,397 152,166 104,256 12,814 1,735 4,996 8,390 5,353 19,279 6,263 44,563 5,576 77,750 1,571 34,598 2,278 70,441 740 32,541 1,685 116,773 1,587 267,171 1,884 702,517 4,599 6,133,048 9,750 1,387 6,658 11,104 5,975 21,479 6,237 43,808 5,023 69,165 1,285 28,134 1,581 49,138 595 26,226 1,865 135,583 2,655 447,409 3,120 1,177,094 2,739 2,939,871 15,966 12,995 2,900,973 1,620,384 5,220 5,971 2,252,907 1,122,883 1,411 (NA) 356,930 (NA) 2,112 (NA) 118,354 (NA) 4,711 (NA) 769,976 (NA) 707 (NA) 73,348 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 2,752 (NA) 932,782 (NA) 62 (NA) 1,516 (NA) 81,033 79,631 33,885,064 25,737,173 418,164 323,205 18,111 2,219 5,854 9,652 6,548 23,510 7,208 51,093 7,761 108,885 2,720 59,120 5,081 158,823 2,497 108,929 6,212 435,855 6,544 1,026,860 3,917 1,361,005 8,580 30,539,114 16,529 1,872 6,833 11,130 6,038 21,417 7,262 50,730 7,169 101,385 2,286 50,081 4,957 155,635 2,174 95,767 6,798 478,765 7,281 1,146,367 4,145 1,455,208 8,159 22,168,817 48,901 48,634 22,903,021 19,152,722 4,261 4,952 1,105,369 722,093 1,811 (NA) 309,402 (NA) 1,188 (NA) 155,566 (NA) 15 (NA) 326 (NA) 150 (NA) 7,909 (NA) 160 (NA) 11,146 (NA) 1,305 (NA) 501,046 (NA) 967 (NA) 119,976 (NA)

See footnote(s) at end of table.

--continued Exhibit 3

2007 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE - STATE DATA UNITED STATES 295 USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service Table 2. Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct Sales: 2007 and 2002 - Con.

[For meaning of abbreviations and symbols, see introductory text]

Item Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Total sales (see text).......................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Average per farm.................................................. dollars, 2007 2002 2007 value of sales:

Less than $1,000 (see text)...............................................farms

$1,000

$1,000 to $2,499...............................................................farms

$1,000

$2,500 to $4,999...............................................................farms

$1,000

$5,000 to $9,999...............................................................farms

$1,000

$10,000 to $19,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$20,000 to $24,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$25,000 to $39,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$40,000 to $49,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$50,000 to $99,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$100,000 to $249,999.......................................................farms

$1,000

$250,000 to $499,999.......................................................farms

$1,000

$500,000 or more..............................................................farms

$1,000 2002 value of sales:

Less than $1,000 (see text)...............................................farms

$1,000

$1,000 to $2,499...............................................................farms

$1,000

$2,500 to $4,999...............................................................farms

$1,000

$5,000 to $9,999...............................................................farms

$1,000

$10,000 to $19,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$20,000 to $24,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$25,000 to $39,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$40,000 to $49,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$50,000 to $99,999...........................................................farms

$1,000

$100,000 to $249,999.......................................................farms

$1,000

$250,000 to $499,999.......................................................farms

$1,000

$500,000 or more..............................................................farms

$1,000 Value of sales by commodity or commodity group:

Crops, including nursery and greenhouse...............farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas............................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Corn................................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Wheat..............................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Soybeans........................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Sorghum..........................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Barley..............................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Rice.................................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 Other grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas........................................................farms, 2007 2002

$1,000, 2007 2002 37,054 31,369 6,061,134 4,525,196 163,576 144,257 14,235 1,457 3,331 5,382 3,002 10,597 3,122 21,896 2,749 38,794 851 18,768 1,628 51,246 755 33,349 2,283 162,360 2,348 378,950 1,247 450,488 1,503 4,887,846 9,429 777 3,587 5,813 2,979 10,545 2,967 20,955 2,882 40,344 896 19,647 1,725 54,476 795 35,098 2,179 154,391 2,064 322,541 867 299,380 999 3,561,229 13,897 10,613 1,981,399 1,216,278 5,304 4,829 1,049,754 448,378 2,926 (NA) 487,703 (NA) 3,649 (NA) 435,716 (NA) 67 (NA) 3,261 (NA) 418 (NA) 21,707 (NA) 326 (NA) 24,066 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 1,248 (NA) 77,301 (NA) 4,916 4,191 551,553 470,637 112,195 112,297 1,307 246 626 1,038 719 2,453 561 3,886 499 6,959 153 3,383 228 7,026 101 4,424 231 16,111 222 35,505 91 31,071 178 439,451 1,312 177 588 949 523 1,797 398 2,751 379 5,294 123 2,713 170 5,252 71 3,092 188 13,160 195 32,391 114 37,906 130 365,155 2,937 2,376 401,372 327,527 157 116 2,316 1,410 142 (NA) 2,182 (NA) 3 (NA)

(D)

(NA) 7 (NA)

(D)

(NA) 1 (NA)

(D)

(NA)

(NA) 18 (NA) 29 (NA) 2,546 2,391 1,083,035 618,853 425,387 258,826 433 66 250 406 201 709 159 1,154 216 2,997 56 1,233 100 2,968 27 1,209 115 8,056 140 23,150 141 52,303 708 988,785 324 66 283 475 141 479 133 876 120 1,688 39 865 93 2,914 54 2,365 180 12,581 195 31,975 499 196,263 330 368,306 1,517 1,366 210,635 150,404 1,098 1,014 117,073 72,393 855 (NA) 67,837 (NA) 339 (NA) 14,661 (NA) 830 (NA) 31,079 (NA) 10 (NA)

(D)

(NA) 137 (NA) 3,319 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 23 (NA)

(D)

(NA) 47,463 44,081 7,785,228 6,242,272 164,027 141,609 16,150 1,999 5,379 8,840 4,839 17,331 4,668 32,863 4,093 57,225 1,311 28,538 2,301 71,667 1,054 45,631 2,435 170,114 2,103 331,134 1,063 373,432 2,067 6,646,454 12,027 1,564 7,087 11,404 4,544 16,093 4,285 30,120 3,910 55,050 1,330 29,469 2,227 70,153 1,078 47,857 2,486 175,907 2,092 328,219 1,147 395,446 1,868 5,080,991 17,307 17,327 6,256,228 5,041,433 730 509 33,344 17,798 555 (NA) 17,583 (NA) 79 (NA) 2,988 (NA) 117 (NA) 2,349 (NA) 37 (NA) 671 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 7 (NA) 8,332 (NA) 141 (NA) 1,421 (NA) 47,846 49,311 7,112,866 4,911,752 148,662 99,608 18,405 2,033 4,986 8,228 4,450 16,014 4,527 31,999 3,860 53,584 1,046 23,011 1,651 51,361 657 29,145 1,491 103,044 2,182 378,793 1,232 459,611 3,359 5,956,045 17,108 1,671 6,878 11,370 5,046 17,996 5,131 36,111 3,881 54,211 997 22,063 1,702 53,332 704 30,950 1,592 112,269 1,804 297,953 1,997 734,621 2,471 3,539,204 15,305 14,837 2,142,270 1,579,596 4,422 3,828 300,754 102,464 3,190 (NA) 178,260 (NA) 1,318 (NA) 45,390 (NA) 1,653 (NA) 61,703 (NA) 448 (NA) 6,569 (NA) 11 (NA) 80 (NA)

(NA)

(NA) 914 (NA) 8,751 (NA) 7,521 5,398 513,626 533,423 68,292 98,819 1,646 299 1,286 2,032 1,012 3,588 996 7,048 939 12,962 204 4,418 401 12,480 156 6,716 353 24,332 274 40,897 106 37,691 148 361,164 661 165 746 1,207 714 2,549 916 6,366 807 11,035 249 5,346 341 10,519 165 7,109 314 20,907 249 37,734 103 36,198 133 394,287 5,376 4,317 429,916 445,356 15 13 19,353 14,647 15 (NA) 19,353 (NA)

(NA)

See footnote(s) at end of table.

--continued

296 UNITED STATES 2007 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE - STATE DATA USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service Table 2. Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct Sales: 2007 and 2002 - Con.

[For meaning of abbreviations and symbols, see introductory text]

Item Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Total sales (see text).......................................................farms, 2007 2002