ML20052H849
| ML20052H849 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1982 |
| From: | Adragna J, Mcdiarmid R CALIFORNIA, STATE OF, ESGCANCA, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8205240067 | |
| Download: ML20052H849 (8) | |
Text
..
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~ -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.l.0
?
u_
i TO:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation In The Matter Of
)
)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-275, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
50-276 3 73 Plant, Unit 1, Unit 2)
)
(Stanislaus Nuclear Project,
)
Docke t No.
P-564-A Unit No. 1)
)
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT " PETITION TO ENFORCE AND MODIFY LICENSE CONDITIONS" OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO LODGE DOCUMENTS On December 4, 1981, the Northern California Power Agency ("NCPA") filed with this Commission a motion to enforce and modify the license conditions attached to PG&E's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and proposed Stanislaus Nuclear Project Unit No. 1. 1/,In that document NCPA adduced evidence which demonstrates that PG&E has chosen to continue in its anticompetitive activities, in violation of its existing license conditions, and has sought "to utilize its interpretation of other license conditions, together with its 1/
By letter of January 7, 1982, the Director of the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation acknowledged receipt of the Petition and informed UCPA that it would be considered in accordance with 10 C.F.R. S2.206.
Notice was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 1982, 47 Fed. Reg. 2965.
Dso3 1
/
/
8205240067 820520 PDR ADOCK 05000275 M
violation, to attempt to exercise its monopoly power to pre-vent or impede the development of new sources of generation by NCPA or by others."
Petition at 2. 1/
On March 10, 1982, NCPA moved to supplement its
" Petition to Enforce and Modify License Conditions," or alternatively for leave to lodge with this Commission two documents, each containing representations by PG&E regarding its interpretation of its obligations under the Stanislaus Commi tments.
The two documents which NCPA there sought to submit to this Commission are PG&E's "Brief of Petitioners Pacific Gas and Electric Company on Petitions to Review Orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission," 2/ and PG&E's "First Post-Hearing Brief of Pacific Gas and Electric Company" before the Presiding Law Judge in FERC Docket Nos.
E-7777(II) and E-7796.
As NCPA stated its Motion of March 10, 1982:
The interpretations reflected in the two documents here sought to be lodged are conflicting, and, in the case of PG&E's representations to the United States l
i l
l 1/
Unless otherwise specified, references to NCPA's l
Hecember 4, 1981 " Petition to Enforce and Modify License Conditions" will be preceded by the designation " Petition."
l 2/
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. FERC, CADC Case Nos.
i 79-1882 and 80-2192.
The decision of the Court of Appeals i
for the District of Columbia Circuit was handed down on May 17, 1982.
The Court affirmed, without opinion, the order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
3-Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, manifestly inconsistent with PG&E's interpretation before this Commission of its obligations under the Stanislaus Commitments.
Motion at 2.
NCPA submits that PG&E's interpretations of its obligations under the Stanislaus Commitments, as reflected in the above mentioned documents, are clearly relevant to this Commission's consideration of the matters raised in NCPA's December 4, 1981 petition.
For the same reasons set forth in our Motion of March 10, 1982, NCPA submits that PG&E's most recent oral and written representations in the same procee6ings before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and before the FERC are relevant to this Commission's consideration of the issues raised in NCPA's December 4, 1981 pe tition.
NCPA therefore moves, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S2.730, to supplement its December 4, 1981 Petition, or, should this Commission deem it more appropriate, alternatively requests leave to lodge with this Commission three additional documents containing PG&E's representations 1/ regarding the Stanislaus Commitments:
1/
Re f erence to PG&E representations before the Court of Appeals and FERC should not, of course, be construed as NCPA concurrence in or acceptance of such Company statements.
As is apparent from the Petition of December 4, 1981, while NCPA believes the Stanislaus Commitments oblige PG&E to provide some services, they do not approach a complete remedy of PG&E's anticompetitive conduct and practices.
By this motion, NCPA again seeks to provide this Commission with the most current Company interpretations of the Commitments.
. Reply Brief of Petitioner Pacific Gas and Electric Company on Petition to Review Orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission," Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
- v. FERC, CADC Case Nos. 79-1882 and 80-2192, March 18, 1982.
" Transcript af Proceedings" in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia" Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
v.
FERC, CADC Case Nos. 79-1882 and_80-2192, April 28, 1982.
1/
"Second Post-Hearing Brief of Pacific Gas and Electric Company" Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., FERC Docke t Nos. E-7777(II) and E-7796.
These documents provide further indication that PG&E's representations to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are inconsistent with PG&E's interpretation before this Commission of its obligations under the Stanislaus Commitments and inconsistent with its representations before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
In NC PA 's view, the documents we submit 1/
Because of the manifest inconsistencies in PG&E's representations before the FERC and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding its obligations under the Stanislaus Commitments, NCPA requested that a Court Reporter be present during oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
That request was reviewed and granted by the panel.
A reporter from a company designated by the court was present during those proceedings, and a " Transcript of Proceedings" was prepared by him.
Copies of that transcript were furnished by NCPA to the Court and to all parties involved in that proceeding.
I
. herewith, in addition to those previously submitted, present evidence of PG&E's lack of candor which raises serious questions about PG&E's basic fitness as a licensee.
Especially in regard to the safety and antitrust matters assigned to this Commission, there must be an absolute assurance that a licensee's representations are meaningful and that the licensee will do what it tel's the Commission it will do.
NCPA believes that the attached documents reflect PG&E's ongoing ef forts to avoid appropriate regulation and persist in its anticompetitive activities.
As asserted in NCPA's December 4, 1981 Petition, PG&E is actively using the Stanslaus Commitments and its varied interpretations thereof to continue to frustrate the ef forts of entities like NCPA to develop viable electric systems independent of and in competition with PG&E. NCPA believes PG&E's employment of the Stanslaus Commitments to such an end, as reflected in the attached documents and elsewhere, is an affront to this Commission's process.
. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, NCPA respectfully requests that this Commission accept the attached documents and consider them in conjunction with our pending Petition to Enforce and Modify License Conditions, dated December 4, 1981.
In view of their seriousness, NCPA further requests this Commission's prompt attention to these matters.
Respectfully submitted,
- f.. ' '
g /,',.\\,!
y' t,
r Robert C.
McDiarmid A
John Michael Adragna V
^
Attorneys for The Northern California Power Agency And Its Members Law Offices of:
Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Idashing ton,
D.C.
20037 (202) 333-4500 May 20, 1982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter Of
)
)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-275, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
50-276 Plant, Unit 1, Unit 2)
)
(Stanislaus Nuclear Project,
)
Docke t No.
P-564-A Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT " PETITION TO ENFORCE AND MODIFY LICENSE CONDITIONS" OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO LODGE DOCUMENTS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 20th day of May, 1982.
Morton B. Margulies, Esq.
Docketing and Service Station Presiding Administrative Office of the Secretary Law Judge U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 4350 East-West Highway Commission Room 461 Washing ton,
D.C.
20555 Bethesda, MD George Deukmejian, Esq.
Donald A.
Kaplan, Esq.
Attorney General of P.O.
Box 14141 California Washington, D.C.
20044 Deputy Attorney General of California Jerome Saltzman, Chief 3580 Wilshire Boulevard Utility Finance Branch Suite 600 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Los Angeles, CA 90010 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
. Philip A. Craine, Jr.,
Esq.
Morris M.
Doyle, Esq.
Glen West, Esq.
William H.
Armstrong, Esq.
Richard L. Meiss, Esq.
Terry J.
Houlihan, Esq.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Meredith J. Watts, Esq.
P.O.
Box 7442 Jane E.
Cosgriff, Esq.
San Francisco, CA 94106 McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Enersen Clarice Turney Three Embarcadero Center 3900 Main Street 28th Floor Riverside, CA 92521 San Francisco, CA 94111 Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Harold R.
Denton, Director Benjamin H.
Vogle r, Esq.
Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq.
Regulation N.R.C.
Staff Counsel Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Room P-428 Commission Bethesda, MD Washington, D.C.
20555
~
/
/
/ John Michael Adragna sf
/
May 20, 1982 Law offices of:
Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
bashington, D.C.
20037 (202) 333-4500
_ _