|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARDCL-99-123, Comment on Prs 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Guidelines. Util Areas of Concern Includes ESF Actuations, Significantly Degraded Components & Historical Limitations1999-09-20020 September 1999 Comment on Prs 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Guidelines. Util Areas of Concern Includes ESF Actuations, Significantly Degraded Components & Historical Limitations ML20205N4081999-04-14014 April 1999 Comments Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,19 & 20 Re Proposed Repository at Yucca Mountain.Requests Information on How Much Radiation Being Released Now at Diablo & Hanford NPPs ML20205N4601999-03-21021 March 1999 Introduces K Schumann as Representative of Nuclear Waste Committee (Nuwic) of San Lius Obispo County.Informs That Nuwic & Nuclear Waste Management Committee Concerned with Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods from Dcnpp ML20195E8841998-11-24024 November 1998 Petition for Mod to OLs to Require Plant Owner to Have Independent Contractor Evaluate Plant Safety Culture ML20236T3011998-07-24024 July 1998 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Avtivities (Effective Immediately).Lh Brooks Prohibited for 5 Yrs from Date of Order from Engaging in NRC Licensed Activities ML20248C2261998-05-22022 May 1998 Comment Opposing Revised Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Protection & Safety Sys ML20129J4191996-10-18018 October 1996 Order Approving Application Re Corporate Restructuring of Pacific Gas & Electric Company by Establishment of Holding Company DCL-95-206, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-61 Re Improving Fire Protection Regulations1995-10-0606 October 1995 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-61 Re Improving Fire Protection Regulations ML20091P8721995-08-23023 August 1995 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-61 Re Nuclear Energy Institute Proposed Amends on Fire Safety for All NPPs DCL-95-001, Comment on Proposed Changes to Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity Rule 10CFR50.Endorses NEI Comments1995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment on Proposed Changes to Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity Rule 10CFR50.Endorses NEI Comments ML20077M7521994-12-30030 December 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operation for Nuclear Power Reactors DCL-94-270, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rulemaking for NPP License Renewal.Endorses Comments & Changes Proposed by NEI 941208 Submittal1994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rulemaking for NPP License Renewal.Endorses Comments & Changes Proposed by NEI 941208 Submittal ML20149H0851994-11-0404 November 1994 Initial Decision (Construction Period Recovery/Recapture).* Renewed Motion to Reopen Record 940808,denied.Served on 941104.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072L2651994-08-23023 August 1994 PG&E Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Renewed Motion to Reopen Record.* Util Opposes San Luis Obispo for Peace Motion Based on Affidavit Stating No Evidence Found in Motion Re Flaw in Program.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072F0291994-08-12012 August 1994 Erratum to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Reopen Record.* Intervenors Corrects Error in Renewed Motion to Reopen Record Re Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072B2651994-08-0909 August 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re FFD Requirements Concerning Random Drug Testing ML20072A5821994-08-0808 August 1994 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Renewed Motion to Reopen Record Re PG&E Application for Amend to Extend Term of OL for Plant.* Motion to Reopen Record to Introduce Insp Rept Identifying Alleged Problems W/Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20071L2061994-07-26026 July 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Changing Current Drug Testing Policies to Exclude All Personnel in nonsafety-related Positions ML20072B8481994-07-26026 July 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Changes to FFD Requirements Concerning Random Drug Testing ML20071L1901994-07-20020 July 1994 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Relaxing Rule on Drug Testing of Employees Working at NPP DCL-94-134, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Each Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program1994-06-27027 June 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Each Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program DCL-94-135, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Proposed Amend to 10CFR50.54(p) Concerning Frequency W/Which Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of Security Programs1994-06-27027 June 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Proposed Amend to 10CFR50.54(p) Concerning Frequency W/Which Licensee Conducts Independent Reviews of Security Programs ML20064D1791994-03-0707 March 1994 Pacific Gas and Electric Co Reply in Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Reopen Record.* Motion to Reopen Record Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064D1961994-03-0404 March 1994 Affidavit of Mj Angus Re Motion to Reopen Record ML20063L5721994-02-25025 February 1994 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Re Util Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.* Advises That Record of Proceeding Should Be Reopened to Consider Insp 93-36 Re Util Surveillance of Asw Sys DCL-94-021, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication Facilitation1994-01-26026 January 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication Facilitation ML20059D2431994-01-0707 January 1994 Package of Intervenor Exhibits Consisting of Related Correspondence Not Admitted Into Evidence.Related Correspondence ML20062N0001993-12-30030 December 1993 PG&E Reply Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.* Mothers for Peace Proposed Findings & Conclusions Do Not Provide Any Supportable Rationale to Change Findings & Conclusions Previously Proposed by Pg&E.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P3931993-12-22022 December 1993 NRC Staff Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Initial Decision.* Certificate of Svc ML20058K7491993-12-0202 December 1993 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Board Has Extended Filing Time for Util Until 931230.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931206.Granted for Board on 931203 ML20058K8771993-12-0202 December 1993 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Requests That Board Extend Date for Staff to File Findings Until 931222. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M5291993-11-19019 November 1993 Applicant Exhibits A-21,A-22,A-24,A-25,A-26,A-29 & A-F1, Consisting of Related Correspondence Not Admitted Into Evidence.Related Correspondence ML20058E0741993-11-19019 November 1993 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Licensee Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.* W/ Certificate of Svc ML20059E8931993-10-28028 October 1993 Memorandum & Order (Motion for Extension of Time).* San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 931018 Request for two-wk Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Granted.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931029 ML20059E8531993-10-27027 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Board Memorandum & Order Re Extension of Time.* Staff Believes That San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Has Shown No Good Cause for Requesting Extension to File Proposed Findings of Fact.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059E8631993-10-25025 October 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion for Extension of Time.* Util Does Not Agree W/Board Assessment That Mothers for Peace Request Appears to Be Reasonable But Will Not Oppose Request.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B2191993-10-19019 October 1993 Memorandum & Order (Responses to Motion for Extension of Time).* Board Believes Intervenor Request for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact Appears Reasonable. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931019 ML20059B1071993-10-18018 October 1993 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Proposing Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.* Requests Extension of Two Wks or Until 931119 to File Proposed Findings of Fact.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057D0531993-09-23023 September 1993 Notice of Appearance.* Notice Given That Undersigned Attorney Enters Appearance in Listed Matter & Listed Info Provided.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057B0401993-09-14014 September 1993 NRC Staff Reply to PG&E Response to Staff Motion to Amend Protective Order.* NRC Staff Moves Board to Adopt Language Requested in 930817 Motion as Stated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056G4891993-08-30030 August 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion to Amend Protective Order.* Staff Asks That Protective Order Be Clarified by Adding New Footnote to Paragraph 3 of Order. W/Certificate of Svc ML20059C7361993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-88,consisting of NRC Insp of Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 IR 05000275/19920161993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-137,consisting of Insp Rept Re Dockets 50-275/92-16 & 50-323/92-16,dtd 920707 IR 05000275/19930111993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-26,consisting of Re Insp Repts 50-275/93-11 & 50-323/93-11 ML20059M1381993-08-24024 August 1993 Staff Exhibit S-1,consisting of Re 920519 Enforcement Conference IR 05000275/19920131993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-140,consisting of 920416,mgt Meeting Repts 50-275/92-13 & 50-323/92-13 ML20059D0841993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-139,consisting of Insp Rept Re Dockets 50-275 & 50-323,dtd 920417 IR 05000275/19920261993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-118,consisting of Notice of Violation & Insp Rept Re Docket 50-275/92-26 & 50-323/93-26,dtd 921113 ML20059M5041993-08-24024 August 1993 Staff Exhibit S-2,consisting of Re Notice of Violation ML20059M8621993-08-24024 August 1993 Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-35,consisting of Rept, Self- Evaluation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Dtd Jul 1993 1999-09-20
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20195E8841998-11-24024 November 1998 Petition for Mod to OLs to Require Plant Owner to Have Independent Contractor Evaluate Plant Safety Culture ML20072L2651994-08-23023 August 1994 PG&E Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Renewed Motion to Reopen Record.* Util Opposes San Luis Obispo for Peace Motion Based on Affidavit Stating No Evidence Found in Motion Re Flaw in Program.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072F0291994-08-12012 August 1994 Erratum to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Reopen Record.* Intervenors Corrects Error in Renewed Motion to Reopen Record Re Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072A5821994-08-0808 August 1994 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Renewed Motion to Reopen Record Re PG&E Application for Amend to Extend Term of OL for Plant.* Motion to Reopen Record to Introduce Insp Rept Identifying Alleged Problems W/Plant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064D1791994-03-0707 March 1994 Pacific Gas and Electric Co Reply in Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Reopen Record.* Motion to Reopen Record Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20063L5721994-02-25025 February 1994 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Re Util Application for License Amend to Extend Term of Operating License for Plant.* Advises That Record of Proceeding Should Be Reopened to Consider Insp 93-36 Re Util Surveillance of Asw Sys ML20058K8771993-12-0202 December 1993 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Requests That Board Extend Date for Staff to File Findings Until 931222. W/Certificate of Svc ML20058K7491993-12-0202 December 1993 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Board Has Extended Filing Time for Util Until 931230.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 931206.Granted for Board on 931203 ML20059E8531993-10-27027 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Board Memorandum & Order Re Extension of Time.* Staff Believes That San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Has Shown No Good Cause for Requesting Extension to File Proposed Findings of Fact.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059E8631993-10-25025 October 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion for Extension of Time.* Util Does Not Agree W/Board Assessment That Mothers for Peace Request Appears to Be Reasonable But Will Not Oppose Request.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1071993-10-18018 October 1993 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Proposing Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.* Requests Extension of Two Wks or Until 931119 to File Proposed Findings of Fact.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057B0401993-09-14014 September 1993 NRC Staff Reply to PG&E Response to Staff Motion to Amend Protective Order.* NRC Staff Moves Board to Adopt Language Requested in 930817 Motion as Stated.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056G4891993-08-30030 August 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to Motion to Amend Protective Order.* Staff Asks That Protective Order Be Clarified by Adding New Footnote to Paragraph 3 of Order. W/Certificate of Svc ML20056E8951993-08-17017 August 1993 Motion to Amend Protective Order (Governing non-disclosure of INPO Rept).* NRC Moves That Board Add Footnote to Paragraph 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20056E8021993-08-12012 August 1993 NRC Staff Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Leave to Conduct Discovery on NRC Inquiry Into Allegations Re Pressure to Falsify Fire Watch Logs Motion for Postponement of Hearing....* W/Certificate of Svc ML20056E7371993-08-12012 August 1993 PG&E Response to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion for Further Discovery & for Delay in Hearing Thermo-Lag Contention.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20046D1091993-08-11011 August 1993 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Request for Leave to Conduct Discovery on NRC Inquiry Into Allegations Re Pressure to Falsify Fire Watch Logs,Motion for Postponement of Hearing on thermo-lag Contention.* ML20046B9181993-07-22022 July 1993 PG&E Request to Defer Briefing Schedule on Ref Ruling Re INPO Documents.* Board Erred as Matter of Law in Ordering Release of INPO Evaluation & Ref Ruling Should Be Reversed by Commission.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20046B9531993-07-22022 July 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Motion to Require cross-exam Plans.* Requests That Board Require cross-examination Plans from Parties That Intend to Conduct cross-examination. W/Certificate of Svc ML20056C8721993-07-16016 July 1993 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Response to 930701 Motion to Compel.* Concludes That Motion to Compel Moot & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20045G9691993-07-0202 July 1993 PG&E Response to Licensing Board Questions Re INPO Documents.* ML20045G9561993-07-0101 July 1993 Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Motion to Compel PG&E to Respond to Third Set of Supplemental Interrogatories & Requests for Document Production,Filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20045G9431993-07-0101 July 1993 Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Slomfp) Response to Prehearing Conference Order Re INPO Documents.* Slomfp Cannot Provide Info by Affidavit Due to Lack of Info Re Content of INPO Documents.W/Certificate of Svc ML20045D7341993-06-21021 June 1993 Pge Motion for Schedule Change.* Util Moves That Licensing Board Adopt Listed Revised Schedule.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128P1821993-02-12012 February 1993 PG&E Preliminary Response to Discovery Request Filed Per 10CFR2.741(a)(2) & Motion for Protective Order.* Util Agrees to & Will Support Reasonable Discovery Into Issues within Scope of Contentions Admitted by Aslb.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D8661993-02-0303 February 1993 Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Request to PG&E for Entry Upon Facility,Per 10CFR2.741(a)(2) for Purposes of Insp,Measuring & Photographing.* W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20127D5461992-09-0808 September 1992 NRC Staff Response to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Ltr Request for Hearing.* Presiding Officer Should Defer Ruling on Standing Pending Receipt of Any Amend Petitioners May File.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20006D7721990-02-0808 February 1990 PG&E Response in Opposition to Application for Stay.* Stay of Random Drug Testing Under NRC Fitness for Duty Rule Should Be Denied on Basis of Untimeliness & Challenge Having No Merit.W/Proof of Svc ML20247Q1531989-07-24024 July 1989 Sierra Club Request to Withdraw Contentions.* Requests That All Outstanding Contentions in Current Proceedings Be Withdrawn W/Understanding That Further Discussion Will Occur Between Sierra Club & NRC Re Nepa.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154E4281988-05-11011 May 1988 Motion to Terminate Proceeding.* Requests Termination of Pending Proceedings on Grounds of Mootness.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148L9531988-03-31031 March 1988 Response to NRC Staff to Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.* Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148L9301988-03-29029 March 1988 Answer of PG&E to Petition to Intervene in License Amend Proceedings of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.* San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Failed to Satisfy Technical Standing Requirements of 10CFR2.714.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237E5071987-12-15015 December 1987 Motion for Leave to File Response of NRC Staff to Appeal of Sierra Club from ASLB Memorandum & Order of 870902 & Initial Decision of 870911,1 Day Late.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20237E6891987-12-15015 December 1987 Motion for Leave to File Response of NRC Staff to Appeal of Sierra Club from Licensing Board Memorandum & Order of 870902 & Initial Decision of 870911,1 Day Late.* Motion Should Be Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237E8191987-12-11011 December 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Appeal of Sierra Club from Licensing Board Memorandum & Order of 870902 & Initial Decision of 870911.* Staff Opposes Sierra Club Appeal & Urges That Board Decisions Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236E0031987-10-21021 October 1987 PG&E Answer in Opposition to Sierra Club Request for Stay.* Util Lists Four Arguments Opposing Request for Stay,Issued by ASLB on 870911,re Util Amends to Increase Spent Fuel Storage Capacity.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C1831987-10-20020 October 1987 Intervenor Request for Stay.* Sierra Club Requests NRC to Stay Effectiveness of 870902 Order & 870911 Initial Decision of Licensing Board Until Sierra Club Has Had Opportunity to Participate in Proceeding Re Reracking.W/Proof of Svc ML20235T4071987-10-0505 October 1987 Response of NRC Staff to Intervenor Sierra Club Request for Stay.* Sierra Club Failed to Satisfy Requirements of 10CFR2.788 & Request for Stay Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235R9611987-10-0202 October 1987 PG&E Answer in Opposition to Sierra Club Request for Stay.* Sierra Club 870924 Request for Stay of 870911 ASLB Initial Decision (LBP-87-25) Authorizing Spent Fuel Pool Reracking Amends Should Be Denied ML20235F2951987-09-24024 September 1987 Intevenors Request for Stay.* Seeks Stay of ASLB 870911 Initial Decision Authorizing NRR to Issue OL Amends, Permitting Reracking of Spent Fuel Storage Pools.W/Proof of Svc ML20234D3021987-09-16016 September 1987 Sierra Club Brief in Support of Appeal of ASLB 870902 Order.* Contention Contains Requisite Specificity to Be Admitted to Proceeding.Criteria for late-filed Contention Met.Proof of Svc Encl ML20238A5771987-08-14014 August 1987 Supplemental Brief Re Applicability of ALAB-869 to Inclusion of Zircalloy Cladding Fire Contention.* Sierra Club Believes Focus for Admission of Contentions Must Be Requirements of Atomic Energy Act & Nepa.Proof of Svc Encl ML20238A6521987-08-14014 August 1987 PG&E Supplemental Answer in Opposition to Intervenor Motion to Admit Late Filed Contention.* Sierra Club Motion to Admit Late Filed Contention & Direct Preparation of EIS Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20238A6001987-08-13013 August 1987 Response of NRC Staff to ASLB Order of 870731 (Directing Parties to File Comments on Applicability of Aslab Decision in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,ALAB-869,to Proposed Contentions at Issue in Matter).* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236B8541987-07-21021 July 1987 Motion on Notification of Meetings,Establishment of Seismic Review Committee & Govt Exam of Design Calculations.* Motion Undated ML20235J1541987-07-10010 July 1987 PG&E Answer in Opposition to Intervenor Motion to Admit late-filed Contention.* Board Requested to Direct NRC Staff to Prepare EIS Re Issues Discussed in Generic Issue 82. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235J1791987-07-10010 July 1987 NRC Staff Answer to Sierra Club Motion to Admit Contention Re Generic Issue 82 & to Direct Preparation of an Eis.* Denial Urged.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20216J7911987-06-29029 June 1987 Motion to Include Issues Raised in Generic Issue 82 as Contentions in Proceeding & to Direct Preparation of Eis.* Board Requested to Direct Preparation of EIS Re Possibility & Impact of Zircalloy Cladding Fires ML20214A9391987-05-13013 May 1987 NRC Staff Comments on Proposed Order Re Electronic Storage & Retrieval.* ASLB Proposed Order Should Not Be Adopted.If ASLB Agrees,Staff & Parties Could Supply ASLB w/MS-DOS Disks of Prefiled Testimony.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207P7081987-01-15015 January 1987 NRC Staff Answer in Opposition to Sierra Club/Mothers for Peace Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Devoid of Any Factual Support Which Warrants Granting of Summary Disposition Re Environ Claims.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-11-24
[Table view] |
Text
_ ___ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.(_ ..
Y
- f. .:
. .- DCCKETEC
^
USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
21 Ai0'02 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r y;q g ,
,9
. .;cy,;h ,Q ~ 2'/N, ,
3 12..
In The Matter of ) -
! Pacific Gas and Electric Company ) Docket'Nos. 50-275A' '
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant) ' * -
L - ~ 5.0 - 3 2 3 A
~~"'
Units 1 and 2) )
To: Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation CLARIFICATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY AND ITS MEMBERS AS TO STATUS OF PETITION FOR INSTITUTION OF A PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AND MODIFY LICENSE CONDITIONS On December 4, 1981, the Northern California Power Agency and its Members ("NCPA") filed a Petition to Enforce and Modify License Conditions in the above dockets and in Docket No.
P-564A, pursuant'to 10 C.F.R. l2.206. Many events have transpired since then, including the termination of Docket No. P-564A, the negotiation and filing of an Interconnection Agreement between NCPA (exclusive of Santa Clara and Redding) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E"),1/ and the filing of civil suits by PG&E against six NCPA members relating to transactions predating the new Interconnection Agreement. NCPA has made several supp.1.ementary filings in this docket, and PG&E has filed several responses. At this point, NCPA's contentions respecting 1/ There is a separate agreement between PG&E and Sar ta Clara.
There is~no such separate agreement between PG&E and,$.iedding.
%$ s.f :
5
V v .
the subject of this proceeding are scattered throughout the record, and the staff of this Commission has suggested that it may no longer be obvious which concerns remain pressing.
NCPA believes that the issuance of the show cause order originally prayed for is still required by PG&E's actions and by the law. In order to simplify this proceeding, however, NCPA has prepared this clarification for the purpose of setting forth those. license violations by PG&E which need to be addressed, and the appropriate action that we believe the Commission should undertake. It is NCPA's intention that the record which has been accumulated heretofore be carried forward in order to avoid wasteful refiling of documents and to preserve the representations which PG&E has made to the Commission. However, this clarification constitutes a full statement of the grievances which NCPA now seeks to press.
When the November 30, 1982 meeting took place in your conference room, your staff had broken down the NCPA Petition as it then stood into nine separate counts. At that time, the stanislaus proceeding was still pending, and NCPA sought modification pursuant to the NRC's statutory authority in that docket as well as in this. The nine counts were described by your staff as follows: . ..
" 1. Violation of Duty to Transmit Under the License Conditions (License Condition 7A).
- 2. Violation of Reservc sharing l Provision (license Condition 3).
l
.2 . . .
- 3. Violation of License C*nditions 2F and 7A (Interconnection Agreements and Transmission Services).
- 4. Violation of License conditions 7D and 9A (rates, charges, practices, etc. shall be subject to the regulatory agencies or court.s having jurisdiction over them).
- 5. Violation of License Condition 7A (transmission service over the Pacific Intertie).
- 6. Modification of that part of License Condition 7A concerning PG&E's exit veto over certain power sales.
- 7. Modification of that part of License Condition 7A that does not require PG&E to transmit from hydroelectric facilities licensed to others.
- 8. Violation of License Condition 5 by PG&E's refusal to permit smaller entities to join the California Power Pool.
- 9. Recent PG&E action towards others that are inconsistent.with its License Conditions."
Not all of these counts need still be urged by NCPA. NCPA is prepared to withdraw certain of these counts without prejudice since we hope 2/ that the problems which gave rise to them have jb/ One is never certain in dealing with PG&E whether the'dompany has conceded the point or is simply waiting for what it believes to be a more propitious moment to renew its position. For
-example, immediately prior to its-refusal to permit Healdsburg L and other NCPA members to take-delivery of the WAPA energy in question in the Healdsburg suit, PG&E had agreed, " pursuant to our Stanislaus commitments," to transmit energy from the Turlock Irrigation District and to permit Healdsburg to utilize such L energy. lin the instance at issue in the Healdsburg case, i [ FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]
b.
r .
been or.are being resolved and will not recur. Moreover, the demise of Docket P-564A, together with the gra't of an operating license in this docket, have caused NCPA to modify somewhat the legal theories upon which it urges you to act. We now turn to an explicationaof'these matters.
As we have explained in our letter of September 14, 1984, this Commission may not properly issue an operating license, absent enforcement, to an entity which has habitually violated preexisting construction permit obligations. We have sought to detail these violations in our letters of August 1 and September 14, 1984. Indeed,.PG&E's response to our September 14 letter,3/ makes absolutely clear its position that PG&E is under no obligation whatever to offer a partial requirements contract when requested so to do under the Diablo Canyon license, but that all license obligations;are' met if it offers and forces a neighboring entity to accept a full requirements contract. 4/
We believe that position of PG&E to be frivolous, as a matter of law. As we have shown (September 14, 1984 letter), a licensee cannot so easily evade its license obligation by forcing those
[ FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PRECEDING PAGE) ..
however, PG&E refused, and now takes the position that it was under no obligation imposed by the license conditions.
3/ Stated in-its letter of. September 26, 1984, addressed to you from Jack Fallin, Esq., aside from its intemperate language.
4/ The Healdsburg contract, of course, is in our view not a full requirements contract under California or any other law, but PG&E asserts that it is.
for whom the license conditions were imposed to " waive" their protection in order to obtain essential services. 5/
NCPA is pressing counts 1, 3 and 4 of its enforcement petition'as those counts were enumerated by your Staff , since it is these violations that are at the heart of the litigation which PG&E initiated against Healdsburg and other NCPA members. If we are correct, then PG&E has also violated License condition 2.H.
PG&E has apparently 1/ filed separate suits against the Cities of Healdsburg, Ukiah, Alameda, Santa Clara, Lodi, and Lompoc, seeking to compel these Cities to pay PG&E for energy which they received from NCPA and which NCPA in turn had purchased from the Western Area Power Administration. The controversy arose from PG&E's refusal to transmit this WAPA energy to these cities in what NCPA believes to have been a violation of the Diablo Canyon license conditions. Because only the Healdsburg complaint has been served,'the ens'uing
, . descriptions will refer to that proceeding. PG&E's legal case 2/
5/ There might be some argument, if a neighboring entity had requested a full requirements contract initially and had not in any way been forced into it, that PG&E would be entitled to some notice before being required to provide. partial requirements services. No suggestion has been made, however, that Healdsburg had requested a full requirements contract (nor could it be,
. since NCPA had been seeking on Healdsburg's behalf a partial requirements interconnection agreement for more than a decade).
1/ Service of the complaint has taken place only with respect to Healdsburg.
2/ As explained to the United States District Court in response to Healdsburg's petition to remove. -
w ~- .g_ ,r,,,-m y,, - -,, y-/,-q- -m,- e.
.-u - , , - -4
is based entirely upon its assertions (1) that Healdsburg was precluded, in 1982, by its contract with PG&E (referred to by PG&E as a " full requirements" contract) from being able to purchase power or energy from others, and (2) that PG&E was under no obligation to permit Healdsburg to use such energy.
PG&E served Healdsburg at that time through contracts which had been negotiated pursuant to the Diablo Canyon license
-conditions in response to requests by Healdsburg for partial
~
requirements service. PG&E. responded with the contracts that are the focus of the california litigation. The Healdsburg contract
~
is dated May 5, 1981. PG&E claims that these contracts are " full requirements contracts." NCPA and its members. disagree, but if PG&E's construction is accepted, then PG&E violated the Diablo canyon license conditions when it offered these contracts in responce to a request for partial requirements service, and PG&E's suit represents an attempt to profit from its violation.
Even if the 1981 contract were construed to be temporarily " full requirements," it does not exclude Healdsburg from securing other sources of electric capacity and energy.
Rather, it expressly commits-PG&E to " endeavor in good faith to amend, supplement or supersede this Agreement in order to accommodate Healdsburg's purchase and use of other sources of
[ electric capacity and energy) on terms and conditions which are just and reasonable." PG&E apparently views this language as excusing it from its obligation under its license. We do not view that language as in any way lessening PG&E's obligation l
l l
1 imposed by Diablo Canyon License Sections 2.F(2)f., 2.F(6), and
. 2.F(7), which provide that no agreement between PG&E and a Neighboring Entity can preclude subsequent agreements with others for the purchase or sale of power (interconnection agreements),
and which impose a continuing obligation on PG&E to offer partial requirements and transmission service upon request.
NCPA had thought that PG&E recognized its obligations to amend its power supply contracts upon request when it allowed NCPA's members to purchase energy from Turlock Irrigation District and, on another occasion, from WAPA, but PG&E refused to do so as to the energy involved in the Healdsburg litigation, apparently since such energy would, absent such agreement, go to PG&E at a very economical rate.
In the present Healdsburg litigation, PG&E views its contractual and. license obligations in a different light than it has implied from time to time in the past. In its letter to you dated September 26, 1984, PG&E's Mr. Fallin sets forth the position that once PG&E enters into a " full requirements" contract, it may ignore any and all future requests for partial requirements service. PG&E also gives little heed to its contractual obligation to allow its customers to procure power and, energy from other sources. In its Opposition to Demurrer filed with the sonoma County Superior Court on August 20, 1984, PG&E states the following:
City's claim that it purchased its power from WAPA fails to defeat the
, complaint. The contract requires-City to pay for its full
requirements of power unless the contract was amended, and the contract has not been amended to permit the transactions City claims as a defense to this suit. The provisions of the Stanislaus Commitments are irrelevant and inapplicable.
Opposition to Demurrer at 11-12 (footnote omitted). PG&E's refusal to. negotiate in good faith to allow the transaction in question apparently is of no moment either under the contract or the license conditions, in PG&E's view.
PG&E's suits against Healdsburg and other NCPA members constitute blatant and continuing violations of the Diablo Canyon license conditions, in our view. PG&E flatly refused to work out partial requirements and transmission arrangements with Healdsburg to enable Healdsburg to purchase the energy in question from NCPA and WAPA, in violation of license sections 2.F(6) and 2.F(7)a. PG&E claims that its contract with Healdsburg destroyed the applicability of these provisions of its Diablo Canyon licenses, conveniently overlooking the language of Section 2.F(2)f, which directs that no interconnection agreement may preclude the implementation of additional interconnection agreements.
By pressing its suit against Healdsburg, 8/ PG&E proclaims that it did nothing wrong by refusing to accommodate 8/ By order of February 28, 1985, the Sonoma County Superior Court (Boone, J.) has stayed the proceeding in that forum, pending referral of the issues raised in the complaint and demurrer to the FERC. PG&E has indicated that it intends to seek appellate review of the referral.
Healdsburg's requests for partial requirements and transmission service, and PG&E declares that it has no obligation under its license to accommodate such requests. This is a blatant challenge to this Commission and a direct repudiation of PG&E's obligations under its licenses. If the license conditions are to have any effect, PG&E must be directed to withdraw these suits and file tariffs to effectuate the power purchase transactions at issue. If specific terms of proposed tariffs are not agreed to by its customers, PG&E may file tariffs of its choosing (consistent with its license obligations) with FERC to accommodate these transactions and allow FERC to adjudicate their justness and reasonableness, subject to refund. If PG&E does not take such action, it should be fined and its construction and operating licenses suspended.
It is essential that PG&E be required to file suitable tariffs'-with-the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission even if PG&E and the Cities cannot " reach agreement" on appropriate terms and conditions. PG&E has a history of refusing to file tariffs until it has reached (or forced) " agreement" with its customers on the appropriate provisions, using the pressure (or
" blackmail") of delay to its advantage and then presenting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with a take-it-or-leave-it package. Implementation of Diablo Canyon license condition 2.F(9)a requires that PG&E's offers of service be filed with FERC,-where PG&E's customers may contest their justness and reasonableness. -
1 Moreover, the Diablo Canyon license conditions should be filed in their entirety along with whatever rate schedule PG&E devises for Healdsburg et al. The Federal Power Act requires the filing of all " practices" and " regulations" affecting and ;
relating to a public utility's rates and charges, as well as "all
~
contracts which in any manner affect or relate to such rates, charges, classifications, and services." 16 U.S.C. ]824d(c).
PG&E's failure to. file the Diablo Canyon license conditions 9/
with FERC is a declaration of its view that those conditions in no way affect or relate to its filed rate schedules. In light of PG&E's open and willful-license violations, such a continuing violation should not be tolerated by the NRC.
It is also important that the NRC enforce license section 2.H. Given PG&E's past history, it is all too possible
~
that PG&E will take the necessary steps to resolve the Healdsburg controversy, but without expressly accepting its obligations under its license conditions. Accordingly, the NRC should compel PG&E to report on its license violations and the steps taken to cure them, in accordance with Diablo Canyon license section 2.H.
Requiring PG&E to acknowledge proper construction'of what its Diablo-Canyon licenses require may be the most effective single 9/ PG&E did file Sections 2.F.(1) and 2.F.(7) of the License Conditions with the FERC when required to do so by the FERC in the E-7777 docket. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 11 FERC j 61,246 (1980), aff'd, Pacific Gas and Electric Co, et al, v. FERC,
-(unreported, D.C.Cir. Nos.79-1881, 80-2129, May 17, 1982). That order of the FERC, however, did not address the obligation, vel non, to file the remainder of those conditions.
e r --_, ---w- - - - - - , - .
step that can be taken to prevent future license violations and to achieve the goals of the Department of Justice in agreeing to the Stanislaus Commitments in 1976.
The license conditions were imposed to protect small entities against PG&E's superior. economic power.
~
If PG&E is allowed to use its superior economic power to extract contractual terms from smaller entities that negate that protection, the conditions will have been nullified. This is the principle which PG&E seeks to establish with its present legal maneuvering, and this Commission must not allow PG&E to succeed. Since PG&E is even now arguing that it has no obligation to transmit or permit a neighboring entity to use power from others, absent a new interconnection " agreement" fully satisfactory to it (regardless of whether the other party believes it to be unjust, unreasonable and grossly unfair) and preapproved by the FERC,- it is now
_ appropriate for this Commission to interpret the license to make clear, once and for'all, the obligations under the NRC license.
It is also timely for this Commission to act, since the core issue which has been referred to the FERC is the question of the obligation of PG&E under the license conditions, a matter with which this Commission can most efficiently deal.
_,_,--,--y_ ~ ,---m+-
-, , - - , _ , - - , m
CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons, and those previously set out, NCPA believes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should forthwith issue a formal notice of violation pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.201, setting forth a concise description of the license violations alleged herein, and, failing a satisfactory response thereto within twenty days, should institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.202 and 50.100 to modify, suspend, or revoke PG&E's licenses for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 by serving on PG&E an order to show cause.
Respectfully submitted, Robert C. McDiarmid
! s ,g Daniel I. Davidson
~
k.
Ben Finke stein March 19, 1985 SPIEGEL & McDIARMID 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 (202) 879-4000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~
BEFORE THE )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
In The Matter of )
Pacific Gas and Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-275A (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant) 50-323A Units 1 and 2) )
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Clarification of Northern California Power Agency and Its Members as to Status of Petition for Institution of a Proceeding to Enforce and Modify License conditions, were served on the following persons by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 19th day of March, 1985.
Honorable Samuel J. Chilk Morris M. Doyle, Esq.
Secretan William H. Armstrong, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Meredith J. Watts, Esq.
Commission Terry J. Houlihan, Esq.
1717 H Street, N.W. McCutchen, Doyle, Brown &
Washington, D.C. 20555 Enerson Three Embarcadero Center Harold Denton San Francisco, California 94 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-404 Shirley A. Sanderson, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94 Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. Michael J. Strumwasser U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Deputy Attorney General Commission 3580 Wilshire Boulevard 1717 H Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20555 Los Angeles, California 9001 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq. Melanie Stewart Cutler,'Esq. :
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chief, Energ Section Commission Antitrust Division 1717 H Street, N.W. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 414 lith Street, N.W.
Room 8415 Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq. Washington, D.C. 20530 Malcolm H. Furbush, Esq.
Jack F. Fallin, Jr., Esq. ~ .
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 i
l
Donald A. Kaplan, Esq.
Special Litigation Counsel Antitrust Division Department of Justice 414 lith Street, N.W.
Room 8415 Washington, D.C. 20530 Richard L. Meiss, Esq.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 -
Evelle J. Younger Attorney General for the State of California 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 550 Sacramento, California 95825 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Antitrust & Indemnity Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Peter-K. Shack,Esq.
Deputy Attorney General 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 350 Sacramento, California 95814 Stephen R. Cohen Edward J. Terhaar Department of Water Resources 1416 9th Street P.O. Box 388 Sacramento, California 95802 Robert C. McDiarmid Attorney for the Northern California Power Agency and its members
~ ~
Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 (202) 879-4000
_