ML20206F346

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits Addendum to SE for Proposed Merger of Calenergy, Midamerican & Indirect Transfer of Licenses for Plant Units 1 & 2.SE & Indirect Transfer of Licenses Should Be Approved
ML20206F346
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/25/1998
From: Essig T
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Pulsifer R
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20206F324 List:
References
FOIA-99-134 NUDOCS 9905060091
Download: ML20206F346 (6)
v • d • e


Text

,. .

/jy . .. < fg arg% .

[j lt UNITED STATES j

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g & WASHINGTON, o.C. 2066H001 s,

/ November 25, 1998 MEMOMNDUM TO: Robert Pulsifer, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-3 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations FROM: Thomas Essig, Acting Chief i Generic issues and Environ {nental Projects Branch i Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Recctor Regulation

SUBJECT:

ADDENDUM TO SAFETY EVALUATION FOR THE PROPOSED MERGER OF CALENERGY AND MIDAMERICAN AND THE INDIRECT TRANSFER OF LICENSES FOR QUAD CITIES UNITS 1& 2 This addendum to an earlier evaluation on the above subject, is in response to information provided by Mr. Bill Short of New York City, who expressed general concern over the financial qualification of CalEnergy to be the indirect license owner, non-operator, of Quad Cities Units 1 & 2.

Specifically, Mr. Short directed staffs attention to the September 25,1998 proxy statement of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, and to the pending law suit of Southern California Edison vs. Coso Finance Partners (CalEnergy). After careful review of the proxy statement and a letter from CalEnergy's attorneys outlining the highlights of the law suit, staff finds that any current or potential financial repercussions on these matters, in and of themselves, do not disqualify CalEnergy from owning Quad Cities through their subsidiary MidAmerican Energy Company, or from providing adequate decommissioning funding. The proxy statement did not contain any information that contradicted, or proved false, the information provided in the CalEnergy/MidAmerican application. These two items and other general concerns expressed by Mr. Short would ise applicable to a potential risk adverse investor, but does not disqualify CalEnergy or MidAmerican from fulfilling its financial qualification in 10 CFR 50.80(b) or 10 CFR 50.75.

Therefore, the Safety Evaluation for the Proposed Merger of CalEnergy and MidAmerican and the Indirect Transfer of Licenses for Quad Cities Units 1 & 2, should be approved.

CONTACT-Michael A Uusaniwskyj NRR/DR":A/PGEB (301)415-1260 9905060091 990504 PDR FOIA ORABER99-134 PDR

Ik . MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Pulsifer. Project Minager November 25e 199fs

_ { ,, , ,, . ,' Project Directorate 1-3 '

.g ., , Divtion of RIactor Projects lil/IV.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations FROM: Thomas Essig, Acting Chief Raj Auluck for/

. Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

ADDENDUM TO SAFETY EVALUATION FOR THE PROPOSED MERGER OF CALENERGY AND MIDAMERICAN AND THE INDipECT .

TRANSFER OF LICENSES FOR QUAD CITIES UNITS 1& 2 This addendum to an earlier evaluation on the above subject, is in response to information provided by Mr. Bill Short of New York City, who expressed general concem over the financial qualification of CalEnergy to be the indirect license owner, non-operator, of Quad Cities Units 1 & 2.

Specifically, Mr. Short directed staff's attention to the September 25,1998 proxy statement of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, and to the pending law suit of Southem California Edison vs. Coso Finance Partners (CalEnergy). After careful review of the proxy statement and a letter from CalEnergy's attomeys outlining the highlights of the law suit, staff finds that any current or potential financial repercussions on these matters, in and of themselves, do not disqualify CalEnergy from owning Quad Cities through their subsidiary MidAmerican Energy Company, or from providing adequate decommissioning funding. The proxy statement did not contain any information that contradicted, or proved false, the information provided in the CalEnergy/MidAmerican application. These two items and other general concems expressed by Mr. Short would be applicable to a potential risk adverse investor, but does not disqualify CalEnergy or MidAmerican from fulfilling its financial qualification in 10 CFR 50.80(b) or 10 CFR 50.75.

Therefore, the Safety Evaluation for the Proposed Merger of CalEnergy and MidAmerican and

- the indirect Transfer of Licenses for Quad Cities Units 1 & 2, should be approved.

CONTACT:

Michael A. Dusaniwskyj NRR/DRPM/PGEB (301) 415-1260 DISTRIBUTION:

Central f/c PGES r/f A RArchitzel SNesnlOGC' DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ MAD \ QUAD 2. CIT Ts seestue e espp of this doountant indleste in the boa: "C" =

p h without petachenantlanciosure

,,j) ll[E "E" = Copo with attachenent/enclosu,e *N" = No copy OFFICE DRPM:PGEB l DRPM;PGEB 1. ,DRPM;PGEB l c l l NACE MDusaniwskyj:ayw RArchitzel s "TEssig DATE a lh/98 /., Uft98 'u t s/98 y3 g OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

I lei o .. .

PAGE 2

' :1ST CASE'of Leval 1 printeid in FULL format.

U GREOORY C. HALSEY, Plaintiff-Appellent, v. CALIFORNIA r' _ ENERGY COMPANY,,INC., and DOES I-XX, inclusive, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-16229 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C'RCUIT 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 28725 September 18, 1997,' Argued and' Submitted, San Francisco, California October 16, 1997, Filed i

NOTICE: [*1) RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION l TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: The Name of this Case has been Corrected by the Court November 19, 1997. Reported'in Table Case Format at: 227 F.3d 1105, 1997 U.S.

App..LEXIS 34968.

l l PRIOR HISTORY:' Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern l District.of Cr.lifornia. D.C. No. CV 95-05950-REC /DLB. Robert E. Coyle, Chief District JP0ge, Pressiding.

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

COUNSEL: For GREGORY C. HALSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant: Lloyd L. Hicks, HOUK, HICKS & GRAVES, Visalia, CA.

For GREGORY C. HALSEY, Plaintift? - Appellants Roger I. Stein, Esq., Ridgecrest, CA.

For CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, INC., and Does I-XX, inclusive, Defendant -

Appalles: Michael Gary Woods, McCORMICK, BARS 70W, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH, Fresno, CA.

For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, INC., and Does I-XX, inclusive, Defendant -

Appalles: John R. Shiner, Esq., MORRISON & FOERSTER, Los Angeles, CA.

JUDGES: Before: ALDISERT, ** SNEED'and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

    • Hon. Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit,-sitting by designation.

OPINION: MEMORANDUM *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  • This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule
  1. /

PAGE 3 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 28725, *1 w* .

J6-3. "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[e2}

Gregory C. Halsey appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of C211fornia Energy Commission, Inc. ("CECI"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CECI on all three of Halsey's claims: (1) wrongful termination in violation of California public policy; (2) termination of an implied employment contract without good cause; and (3) breach of the implied cov:nnnt of good faith and f air dealing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 0 1291, and we affirm.

A. Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy

1. Burden Allocation Halczy argues the district court erroneously shifted the burden onto him to 30tchlich that CECI's stated reasons for his termination were pretextual. Halsey cont:nds the district court improperly applied the shifting burdens used in fed;ral civil rights cases.

While Halsey is correct that the district court relied on civil rights cases in discussing his claims, his argument fails because the standard articulated by tha court in addressing these claims was functionally equivalent to the standard for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

CECI produced evidence that Halsey's poor job performance [*3] was the reason for his termination. In order to establish a genuine issue of material fact, Halsey had to come forward with some evidence to support his assertion th:t CECI's reason for firing him was false or pretextual. The district court did not improperly shift the burden to Halsey.

2. Csusal Link H21ery contends the district court erred by holding that he failed to dnmonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causal link between the protected activity and his termination. We disagree.

Hzlacy's job was to report on matters affecting the environment. He did so.

His final employment review, however, was below satisfactory. He was later termin ted. His termination followed his reports, but that was not surprising inicmuch as it was his job to make the reports.

H21c;y's allegations in support of his contention that he was fired for eng ging in protected activity are speculative at best and lack specificity.

Parhaps his strongest claim is that he was " demoted" after he reported dead v2gstation near an unmonitored vent. That claim, however, was refuted by evid:nce presented by CECI that Halsey's supervisor was merely replaced, while 321c y's pay and duties remain [*4) unchanged. There was no demotion.

Halsey was eventually fired, but he produced no evidence of a causal link betw en what he contends was " protected activity" and his termination. We affirm tha district court's summary judgment on this ground and do not reach the qu23 tion whether Halsey ever engaged in " protected activity."

1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 28725, *4 B. Implied Contract Tha district. court determined that no implied contract existed and, in any cvent, Halsey was fired for good cause.

}

Und2r California law, it is presumed that employment with an unspecified term -

may be terminated at will unless the parties offer contrary evidence that the employsa could only be discharged for good cause. Pugh v. See's Candies Inc.,

116 Cal. App. 3d 311, 324-25, 171 Cal. Rptr. 917, 930-31 (1981).

The district court correctly determined that Halsey did not present evidence

.of a "for ecuse" implied contract. His employment, therefore, was at will and CECI could fire him without cause.

,C. CovInant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing An at-will employment relationship contains no covenant of good faith and fair damling under California law. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 657, 254 Cal. Rptr. (*5) 211, 214, 765 P.2d 373 (1988). Accordingly, th2 district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of CECI on

thic claim.

AFFIRMED.

1 1

1 i

r 2ND CASE of L v31 1 printed in FULL format.

. GREGORY C. HALSEY, Plaintiff-Appallent, v. CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMPANY, INC., and DOES I-XX, inclusive, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-16229 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 127 F.3d 1105; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 34968 September 18, 1997, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California October 16, 1997, Filed NOTICE: [*1] DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. CV 95-05950-REC /DLB. Robert E. Coyle, Chief District Judge, Presiding.

R: ported in Full-Text Format at: 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 28725.

OPINION: AFFIRMED.

1 l

l l

1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20206F346&oldid=3324483"