ML20051J904

Application for Stay of Low Power License & Appeal from Denial of Stay by Aslab.All Four Criteria for Granting Stay Are Met.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20051J904
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	05/10/1982
From:	Raynard Wharton CARSTENS, A.S., WHARTON, R.J.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205170277
Download: ML20051J904 (12)

Text

.

" g*r o

g RIGARD J. WARIU1 ENVIR0tEENTAL IAW CLINIC INIVERSIIY OF SAN DIEGO a

U PJ g AILAIA PARK SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 Attorney for Intervenors, CARSTENS, et al.

UNIIED STATES OF AMERICA NUCIIAR REGUIATORY C@NISSION saute:. 'DE

, NUCLEAR REGLIATORY CCWISSION tt) b In the Matter of

) DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL e

)

50-362 OL

'" EC 3

h M tn 1

SOUDERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CWPANY, et al.,)

g:

O M

)

a (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,

)

N% e h, g

~~

Units 2 and 3)

\\

g7 4,

t e

'U INIERVEtORS, CARSIENS, et al.

tr APPLICATION FOR STAY OF IIM POWER LICENSE (10 C.F.R. 2.788)

AND APPEAL FRai DENIAL OF BY THE ASIAB I

SRMARY OF THE DECISION OR ACTION WICH IS REQUESTED TO BE STAYED On January 11, 1982, the Atatic Safety and Licensing Board, Chairman, James L.

Kelley, presiding, issued its Initial Decision in the matter of the apolication of Southern alifornia Edison Cocpany, San Diego Gas and Electric, City of Anaheim, r

and City of Riverside for a license to authorize the loading of full and low-power testing for Unit 2 of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Said Initial Decision and Order authorized the Director of Nuclear Reaction Regulation, upon making the findings on all other matters specified in 10 C.F.R. 550.57(a), to issue the license applied for by the Applicants.

Said decision was based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusicns of Law as fully set forth in A.S.L.B. Partial Initial Decision dated January 11, 1982 in The Matter of Southern California Edison Co., et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station thits 2 and 3) Docket Nos. 50-361 OL; 50-362 OL.

Intervenors, Carstens, et al. timely took its appeal by the filing of exceptions to the Initial Decision, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.762, on January 27, 1982.

No stay being issued by the Cacmission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.764, Intervenors, Carstens, et al., made a timely application.for stay on January 27, 1982. The ASIAB in its decision dated April 26, 1982, and served by mail on April 27,~1982, denied the request for stay. Intervenors, Carstens,- et al., hereby make application to the Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission for a stay of the Licensing Board's l

decision pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.788(h).

D563 l

~1-

'I 0% U 517 0277 C

II GROUNDS FOR STAY 10 C.F.R. 2.788 provides that in deterdning whether to grant or deny an application for a stay,..."the Appeal Board will consider (1) whether the mving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits, (2) whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted, (3) whether the granting of a stay would harm other parties, and (4) where the public interest lies".

Intervenors, Carstens, et al., respectfully subdt that all four criteria for granting a stay are met in this case as set forth herein.

A.

Be Intervenors are Likely to Prevail on the Merits of the Apoeal.

10 C.F.R. 2.788 limits an application for a stay to 10 pages. Because of this lidt, it is not possible to discuss in detail every single error comitted by the Licensing Board. Intervenors refer the Comission to its exceptions to the Initial Decision filed with the Comnission on January 27, 1982, for a ccelete list of all errors alleged.

1) Le Board Ccumitted Prejudicial Error By Foreclosing Intervenors From Litigating he Capability of the Cristianitos Fault and be Appeals Board Erred in Finding Eat his Was "Farmless Error".

Be licensing Board in its Partial Initial Decision (hereinafter PID) at Page 20, states:

"As previously described, the Cristianitos Fault is the closest significant geologic feature to San Onofre.

If the Cristianitos were shown to be a capable fault, it would certainly be significant and perhaos crucial to the safety of the San Onofre facility. 'Ihat was the purpose of the evidence we have just described. However, in the circunstances of this case, the Board determined that the prior opportunity to litigate the capability of the Cristianitos at the construction permit stage forelosed the relitigation of that question in this operating license proceeding, absent a sufficient showing."

It nust be pointed out that the use of the word "relitigated" by the Board is inapprooriate here since the issue was not litigated at the construction hearings and no findings were made in that decision regarding the C.F. (See 6 AEC 629 for construction license decision).

Frcxn the Licensing Board's decision and frcxn.the record and decisicn of the construction license it can be stated without any chance of contradiction that:

1.

The Cristianitos fault is about one-half tile frcrn the facility and is the closest significant geologic feature to San Onofre. (See PID Page 3 and 20.);

2.

If the Cristianitos were shown to be a capable fault it would be i l

perhaos crucial to the safety of the facility (PID Page 20);

3.

Be issue of the capability of the Cristianitos has never been litigated by any NRC licensing board nor has the NRC ever decided the issue of the capability of the Cristianitos fault and this licensing board has refused to decide the issue based upon " foreclosure". (See 6 AEC 629; PID Pages 20 & 21).

To invoke foreclosure on an issue which the Licensing Board admits is "perhaps crucial to the safety of the San Onofre facility" under circustances where the elements of Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata are not present is a legal absurdity.

The Appeals Board agreed with the Intervenors that foreclosing the issue of the capability of the C.F. was legal error (See ASLAB decision Page 5 line 3).

The Appeals Board goes on to find that "Ihis apparent legal error, however, is not of major consequence...we think the Board's apparently mistaken foreclosure ruling was harmless".

It is hard to imagine how it can be harmless error to not fully litigate and decide an issue that is crucial to the safety of the plant.

It has been held generally that an erroneous ruling is prejudicial if it relates to a major point, and further that the absence of prejudice must affirmatively appear.

(Brown land Co. v. Lehman,134 Iowa 712,112 N.W.185; Texas Indennity Ins. Co. v. McCurry, 41 S.W. 2d 215 78 AIR 760.

In the present case, the error involved not merely excluding evidence, but a refusal to litigate and decide an entire crucial issue. The absence of prejudice does not affirmatively appear. A discussion of the reasons the Appeals Board gave for finding harmless error in fact shows that what the Board did was prejudicial error and a violation of fundamental due process.

'a.

The Licensing Board and the Appeals Board Assumed A Priori the Issue to be Decided, Nmmly the Activity of the Cristianitos Fault.

The Appeals Board cites the Licensing Board in finding that "The Cristianitos fault did not control the seismic design of San Onofre because it had long been an inactive (not capable) fault". (See ASIAB decision Page 9).

This statement is a conclusion regarding an issue that was not litigated or decided by the Appeals. Board, but is stated as fact. This is precisely the issue that the Intervenors wanted to litigate but were foreclosed from doing.

The Appeals Board then cites the record of the heanng to support this statement (See footnote 5). This illustrates the basic unfairness of the decision and the convoluted reascning that is going on. The Licensing Board cites the testinony of the Applicants and Staff to support the proposition that the C.F. is

• inactive, after it has striken the entire testinony of the Intervenor's witness:s regarding the Cristianitos fault and foreclosed the Intervenors from litigating the issue and prevents Intervenors from cross-examining witnesses the Licensing Board relies upon. (e.g. Cardone and Reiter).

b.

Be Appeals Board Erroneously Concluded that the Foreclosure Ruling had Little if any Inpact on the Proceeding.

The Appeals Board tries to unke the point that all the ruling deprived Intervenors of was the ability to cross-examine Staff witness Dr. Reiter and Mr.

Cardone. Even if this were the case, the opoortunity to cross-examine witnesses I

is fun +=ntal to conducting a fair hearing and due process.

Be Cacmission can take judicial notice from their own experience that many Interventions consist only of cross-examination of the Applicants and Staff witnesses. In the present case, the Intervenor's best witness in support of its case turned out to be Dr. Slenmons, a staff witness, on cross-examination. (See discussion of maximm magnitude to follow.)

he ability to cross-examine witnesses for the opposing side has always been considered a fundamental right and is the basic principle upon which the adversary system relies. Failure to allow cross-examination of material witnesses has consistently been held to be prejudicial error.

%e Appeals Board has also misconstrued Counsel for Intervenor's statement regarding the deficiency in the record resulting frcan the foreclosure ruling.

(See ASIAB 673 P.15). Counsel stated that one of the deficiencies was the inability to cross-exam Dr. Reiter and Mr. Cardone. Be main deficiency not discussed at the hearing is that all of the Intervenors testimony regarding the capability of the Cristianitos fault was stricken from the record.

Since there was no evidence on the record regarding Intervenor's position that the Cristianitos fault is capable and since the Licensing Board foreclosed that issue, the Intervenors were precluded from presenting proposed findings cnd conclusions regarding the capability of the Cristianitos fault.

As stated in CFR 2.754(c):

" Proposed findings of fact...shall be confined to the unterial issues of fact presented on the record, with exact citations to the transcript of the record and eMtibits in support of each proposed finding."

Since all of the Intervenor's testinony regarding the capability of the Cristianitos fault was stricken, there was no evidence for the Intervenors to refer to.

It would also have been inproper for the Intervenors to propose findings on an issue that was foreclosed.

The submission of proposed findings and conclusions is perhaps the most inportant part of litigation of this kind. In the proposed findings, the parties.

,pressnt their best cass regarding the issues to be decided. It is the closing argunent of a licensing hearing.

In the present case the foreclosure niling prevented Intervenors from presenting findings of fact regarding the Cristianitos fault capability which is the same as not allowing Intervenors closing argunent about a crucial safety issue.

Be denial of such a fundamental right in an adjucatory hearing is clearly prejudicial.

The Appeals Board apprently makes much of the fact the Intervenors did not question Dr. Biehler about pre-1973 events. The record on Page 3992 clearly reflects why this happened. At line 3, Judge Kelley states,'ht are we doing back in 1967?"

his statement reflects a previous ruling that any testinony regarding the Cristianitos fault was to be limited to post 1973. B at is the only reason Dr.

Biehler was not questioned about pre-1973.

The Appeals Board also states that the Intervenors did not make an offer of proof as to what would have been ilicited through cross-examination of

&. Cardone and Dr. Raiter as to pre-1973 matters.

It is not clear when such an offer of proof should have been made or to whczn. It could not have been made to the Licensing Board.after they foreclosed the matter, nor is it proper to make an offer of proof to an Appeals Board.

The ruling excluded all evidence regarding the Cristianitos fault. It clearly affected a substantial ri ht and the substance of the evidence was apparent E

to all.

The Issue of the Canability of the Cristianitos Fault was Within c.

The Scope of the Contentions Set for Hearing.

Contenticn Nucber 3, as revised and admttted for the hearing states:

"Whether the seismic design basis for SONGS 2 & 3 is inadequate to protect the public health and safety as a result of discoveries subsequent to issuance of the construction permit of the following geologic features...(3) Such other features as the parties may agree are relevant to the seismology of the SONGS site or with respect to which Intervenor Friends of the Earth makes a threshold showing of relevance."

The issue was presented under this contention. No objection was made that a threshold showing of relevance was not made nor did the Board rule that this issue was not relevant. The evidence presented by Dr. Biehler, Dr. Ehlig, Mr. Simons and &. Ligg clearly makes a threshold showing of relevance.

If the issue of the capability of the Cristianitos fault is relevant in light of 7 events on or near the Cristianitos fault occuring since 1973, it would clearly be appropriate to review pre-1973 events in order to fully determine the capability of the Cristianitos fault. In determiring issues in the science of geology which deals with millions of years of seismic history, it would be.

9 ludicrous to bass a deterndnation on a 9 year r: cord. B e ea @. that occurred since'1973 makes the issue of the capability of the fault relevant. Since it is relevant all evidence regarding the capability of the fault should be adadtted to properly decide the matter.

d.

B e Record of the Case Fails to Give Reasonable Assurances L

B at the Public Health and Safety Will Not Be Endangered.

2e Appeals Board properly sets forth the standard for deciding whether to allow continued operation of the plant during the pendancy of the appeal. hat is, is there reasonable, assurance that the public health and safety will.not be endangered (A1AB-673, P.18).

he Appeals Board in its decision reviewed the record and essentially attenots to decide the issue that was not decided and which was foreclosed from litigation. It is respectfully subdtted that because the issue was foreclosed from litigation and the record is incenplete regarding the issue, that the determination that there are reasonable assurances that the public health and safety will not be endangered cannot be made.

Because Intervenors are lidted here to 10 pages and the Appeals Board decision is 51 pages,it is inpossible to rebut every point.

We refer the Camission to Intervenor's Brief in Support of Exceptions for

a. full discussion of the evidence supporting the capability of the Cristianitos fault.

(See Pages 3,4,5,6,7,8,10 and 11).

%e treatment of this issue can be sumned up by stating that the applicants, staff and the Licensing Boards are attenpting to explain away.or not address,the obvious. Le Cristianitos fault is an active fault. For purposes of conservatism, and taking into account error in location, it nust be assuned that 20 earthquakes have occurred on the Cristianitos fault since 1932. (See testinony of Sirons). For purposes of conservatism, and taking into account Dr. Biehler's error bars, it nust be assumed that the hypocenters of the 1975 earthquakes occurred on the Cristianitos fault.

(See Intervenor's Brief in Support of Exceptions, Page 10, I

11, and Chart on Page 10-A).

2.

Offshore Zone of Deformation.

4 Because of page lidtations, the Intervenors refer the Cennission to i

i Intervenor's Application for Stay, Pages 5,6,and 7, and Intervenor's Brief in Support of Exceptions, Pages 14,15,16,17,18,19 and 20, for its argunent regarding the 4

. Licensing Board redeciding an issue decided.at the construction hearing.

B e Appeals Board in reviewing this' issue has failed to note the significance of the decision that the OZD is segmented rather than a continuous zone of deformation capable of an earthquake the magnitude of which would be conmensurate I

with the length of the zone.

It makes a great deal of difference in deterdning l.

the maximum earthquake'that can occur.

f L i

he previous decision detGrmined it was one continuous zone of defo it was agreed by the parties that it was one continous zone of defomatio B 673 P.33) confims testimony of Mr. Devine referred to by the Appeals Board (see ALA -

it is one contirracus zone.

I Be Licensing Board ruled that it was three distinct non-continuous segme Bis is in direct contradiction to the previous ruling and (See PID P.30,31,32).

Be effect of this ruling is to incroperly lidt the size of the earthquake constitutes error.

OZD, and also which can be expected to the length of the segments rather than the precludes any consideration of the OZD contiruing hco Baja California Bis is clearly prejudicial error and greatly effected the Board's determination of the maMme magnitude earthquake that can be gener OZD.

h e MaM m m Magnitude Earthquake.

3.

Again, because of length lidtaticn, Intervenors refer the Comissio Intervenor's Application for Stay Pages 7 and Intervenor's Brief in Sup Exceptions Pages 21 through 38, inclusive, for a full discussion o error in deterdning the maxinum magnitude earthquake.

Le Intervenors maintain that the Licensing Board and the Appeah; have ignored Dr. Slenmon's testinony where he himself detemined deviation should be added to the calculations in his written testinony.

he Appeals Board in its decision deterdned that it is not correct or i d reasonable to add an additional standard deviation to the earthquake magn tu Dr. Slermans estimates from the rupture length.

he Board in so ruling, ignores the fact that in making his estimates, Slemons uses two sets of calculations, both of which have standard de Both standard deviations should be used to account for More importantly, the Board ignores Dr. Slemon's own testinony w account for error.

it sees the error in his written testimony and changes it on the record. (Se d (d).

Page 6275, 6276 and 6277, contained in Intervenor's Brief on Pa Bis testinony clearly establishes that, using the standard deviation from a properly, the maxinun magnitude earthquake which can occur on the low of Ms 7.4 to a high of Ms 7.8.

A review by the Camission of Dr. Slennon's testimony will clearly t ct the the maxinun magnitude assigned for SONGS.2 &' 3,is insufficient to pro e Be Appeals Board has decided that the Licensing Board public health and safety.

Bis error in under-cocritted error in foreclosing the Cristianitos fault issue.

heart of the estimating the maxinun magnitude that can be expected goes to the very be crucial safety issue and justifies granting a stay until all these issues can l

I,

r

, reselved on Appeal.

4.

Other Issues On Acceal a.

The Board erred in miscontrueing and not giving sufficient weight to the testirony of Dr. Boore. Intervenors refer.the Ccxmission to Intervenor's Application for Stay Page 8 and its Brief in Suoport of Exceptions Pages 39 through 45 inclusive, for a full discussion of this issue.

The Appeals Board in its review discounts Dr. Boore's predictions and follows the Applicant's line that data beyond 50km should be eliminated from the study.

They ignore the fact that Dr. Boore is the only indeoendent witness to make and testify to such ground notion studies and that Dr. Boore specifically rejected the idea of elindnating data beyond 50km from the study.

His testimcny reflects the latest and nost up to date study of ground accelerations and includes all data available as of the date of the hearing. His testinony clearly estabH.3hes that the Design Basis Peak Ground Accelerations of

.67g will be exceeded by both an Ms=7.0 and M =7.5 earthquake on the OZD.

s b.

The Board ignored and nisconstrued the testinony of Dr. Iaco wherein he testified that for an earthquake with a local magnitude of Ms=6.5, response spectra consistent with peak accelerations of.8g and peak velocities of 60cm per second, would be appropriate (transcript P.4996 Line 18-25, 4997 Line 7-19). Intervenors incorporate by reference page 46-98 of Intervenor's Brief in Support of Exceptions regarding this issue.

c.

The Board erred in ruling that the design criteria for the plants have not been affected by evidence from recent earthquakes which invalidate the assumption that vertical accelerations do not exceed 2/3 of horizontal accelerations during an earthquake. Intervenors incorporate by reference pages 49 and 50 of its Brief in Support of Exceptions regarding this issue.

III

'DE INIERVENORS ARE LIKELY TO BE IRREPARABLY INRJRED IKESS STAY IS TANIED 1he general equity rule is that an injury, is deemed " irreparable" when it cannot be adequately coupensated in damages because of the nature of the irjury itself or nature of right or porperty injured, or there exists no certain pecuniary standards for measurenent of damages. Inckenback S.S. Co. v. Norton D.C. Pa.,21 F.

Supp. 707, 709. There can be no question that a' nuclear accident caused by an earthquake could cause such damage to life and property as to be irreparable in light of the liability limits of the Price Anderson Act.

It is well settled that when a party is incapable of responding in damages that the injury is considered irreparable.

See Cleveland v. Martin, 75 N.E. 772, 77, Lloyd v. Catlin Coal Co.,

210 Ill. 460, 71 N.E. 335.,

In the present cass Intervenors recuest a stay of the granting of the lw

' power license pending appeal. The issue on appeal is the adequacy of the seismic design.

Intervenors have made a strong showing of likelihood of success on appeal.

If the Comission is satisfied that the Seisde Issues have not been properly resolved, then it is proper to find that an earthquake hazard exists. To alls the plant to go into lw power operation without resolution of those issues subjects the Intervenors and all of the citizens of Southern California to irreparable injury in that an ea@. above the design basis could cause a serious loss of containment accident even during low power testing. This is especially hazardous in light of the fact that$ offsite emergency plans are not yet in place and found adequate by F.E.M.A.

(That is why a full power license has not been granted). To allow low power testing in light of unresolved seisde hazards and inadequate offsite emergency plans is to subject Intervenors and the citizens of Southern California to irreparable injury.

IV WEDER HE GRANT OF THE STAY WIIL HAIM ODER PARTIES Intervenors subdt that the granting of the stay will not inordinately harm other parties in that:

1.

The sole benefit of perforndng low power tests is that the Applicants will have a few nonths start up time. tb electricity will be generated.

the cost of doing such tests pending appeal is that such tests will cause the plant to be irradiated so that it cannot be used for any other purpose than to generate electricity by nuclear fuel. This would elidnate any other cotions and the possiblity of conversion to another fuel source would be eliminated.

In addition, if it is determined on appeal that the plant needs to be upgraded to withstand larger earthquakes, the radiolcgical contamination caused by lw power testing could prevent complete upgrading.

2. Recent reports to the NRC indicate a serious leakage problem in Unit 2.

It is not known by Intervenors hm long this will delay low power testing, but some delay is certain. Granting a stay will not inordinately harm the Applicants in light of this delay.

V MERE HE PUBLIC INTEREST LIES The public interest lies in not operating in not operating the plant in any way, including low power testing, until all Appellate review are cmpleted and it is

~

finally determined by all levels of review that the plaint is seisdcally safe, and all crergency plans are in place and have received final Federal Energency Manage:ent Agency approval.

A s

e Anything less would be abrogation of the Camission's duty to protect the public health and safety.

IRTED: May 10, 1982 Respectfully submitted, 1 La b't ib..'k-L & n.

RICHARD J. RULM Attorney for Intervenors, Carstens,et al, e

'I I

i r

/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

+..' 12 e, :.' j I declare that:

I am employed in the City and County of San Diego, CSlif'ornia.

I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is University of San Diego School of Law, Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110.

On May 11, 1982, I served the attached INTERVENORS ' CARSTENS ET. AL.

APPLICATION FOR STAY TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in the United States mail at San Diego, California addressed as follows:

l i

Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Stephen F. Eilperin U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman, Atomic Safety and Wachington, D.C.

20555 Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f

Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Re'ginald L. Gotchy Member, Atomic Safety and John F. Ahearne, Commissioner Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Thomas M.

Roberts, Commissioner Dr. W. Reed Johnson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Member, Atomic Safety and Wnchington, D.C.

20555 Licensing Appeal Board

(

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James L. Kelley, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge

~

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D.C.

20555 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Administrative Judge c/o Bodega Marine Lab.

Edward G. Ketchen, Esq.

University of California Office of the Executive Legal P.O. Box 247 Director Bodega Bay, CA 94923 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mrc. Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Lab.

P.O.

Box X, Building 3500

_RSynfrat _______ __ ___

l

.s Richard K. Hoefling, Esq.

Janice E.

Kerr, Esq.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.

Of fice of the Executive Legal Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.

Director California Public Utilities Waehington, D.C. 20555 Commission 5066 State Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Francisco, CA 94102 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555, James F. Davis State Geologist Docketing and Service Station Division of Mines and Geology Office of the Secretary 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sacramento, CA 95814 washington, D.C. 20555 Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.

Robert Dietch, Vice President 1695 W.

Crescent Avenue Southern California Edison Co.

Suite 222 P.O.

Box 800 Anaheim, CA 92801 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Charles E. McClung, Jr. Esq.

23521 Paseo de Valencia Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Suite 308 Rourke & Woodruff Laguna Hills, CA 92653 California First Bank Building 10555 North Main Street Mrs. Lyn Barris Hicks 8

Calle Ariana San Clemente, CA 928 1 Robert G.

Lacy Mr. Lloyd Von Haden San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

2D89 Foothill Drive P.O. Box 1831 vista, CA 92 83 San Diego, CA 92112 David R. Pigott, Esq.

Samuel B. Casey, Esq.

John A. Mendez, Esq.

Edward B.

Rogin, Esq.

o'f Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe A Professional Corporation 600 Montgomery Street i

San Francisco, CE 94111 l

Charles R. Kocher, Esq.

James A. Beoletto, Esq.

Southern California Edison Compay q /((f hgf 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue KAREN M. ORSULAK Rosemead, California 91770 r

rw -

--n