ML23097A129

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Answer Opposing San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene

ML23097A129
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	04/07/2023
From:	Bassette P, Lighty R, Matthew T Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 56696, 72-26-ISFSI-MLR
Download: ML23097A129 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of:

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation)

Docket No. 72-26-ISFSI-MLR April 7, 2023 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYS ANSWER OPPOSING SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACES HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE RYAN K. LIGHTY, ESQ.

PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.

TIMOTHY P. MATTHEWS, ESQ.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 II.

BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 2 A.

The DC ISFSI and the LRA................................................................................... 2 B.

DCPP...................................................................................................................... 2 C.

Procedural History................................................................................................. 3 III.

THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE SLOMFP HAS NOT PROPOSED AN ADMISSIBLE CONTENTION............................................................ 4 A.

Contention Admissibility Criteria.......................................................................... 5 B.

Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at the Diablo Canyon Site........................................ 6 C.

Proposed Contention A Is Inadmissible................................................................. 7

1.

The FSAR and GDC.................................................................................. 8

2.

Financial Qualifications........................................................................... 11

3.

Decommissioning Funding...................................................................... 15 D.

Proposed Contention B Is Inadmissible............................................................... 17

1.

Purpose & Need....................................................................................... 18

2.

Alternatives and Cumulative Impacts...................................................... 21

3.

State Statutes and Regulatory Proceedings.............................................. 23 IV.

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 25

1 I.

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(1), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby submits this Answer opposing the Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Petition) served via the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) E-Filing system on March 14, 2023, by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP).1 The Petition seeks a hearing and proposes two contentions purporting to challenge PG&Es application for renewal (LRA) of the specific license for the Diablo Canyon (DC) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), license number SNM-2511, issued under 10 C.F.R. Part 72.2 As detailed below, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) should deny the Petition because neither proposed contention is admissible.3 In its Petition, SLOMFP proposes two contentions. The first alleges a failure to satisfy certain NRC safety requirements, and the second alleges a failure to satisfy NRC environmental review requirements. Both of these claims invoke the possibility that the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP) may be renewed to allow operation for up to an additional 20 years beyond their current expiration dates. SLOMFP speculates that the DC ISFSI must be expanded in order to accommodate the additional spent fuel that would result from that continued operation. However, as explained below, SLOMFPs claims rest on mistaken readings of documents and misunderstandings of regulatory requirements. In essence, SLOMFP improperly seeks to blur the lines between renewal of the DC ISFSI license (which is 1

Re-Filed [SLOMFP]s Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene in License Renewal Proceeding for Diablo Canyon Spent Fuel Storage Installation (dated Mar. 13, 2023, properly filed and served Mar. 14, 2023)

(ML23073A382) (Petition).

2 Letter from M. Zawalick, PG&E, to NRC Document Control Desk, License Renewal Application for the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Encl. (Mar. 9, 2022) (ML22068A189) (LRA).

PG&Es Environmental Report Supplement (ERS) is Appendix F of the LRA.

3 PG&E does not dispute SLOMFPs administrative standing under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d).

2 the sole focus of this proceeding) and the potential renewal of the DCPP licenses (the application for which has not yet been submitted and is well beyond the scope of this proceeding).

Ultimately, neither of SLOMFPs proposed contentions satisfy all six admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f). Accordingly, because SLOMFP has not proposed an admissible contention, the Petition should be denied.

II.

BACKGROUND A.

The DC ISFSI and the LRA On March 9, 2022, PG&E filed the LRA seeking a 40-year renewal of specific license number SNM-2511 for the DC ISFSI, which expires on March 22, 2024. That license authorizes PG&E to receive, possess, transfer, and store spent fuel from DCPP. The DC ISFSI consists of seven storage pads that collectively provide sufficient storage for all spent fuel generated at DCPP during the units initial 40-year operating periods.4 On September 8, 2022, the NRC determined that the LRA contained sufficient information to begin its technical review and was acceptable for docketing.5 B.

DCPP The operating licenses for DCPP expire in 2024 (Unit 1) and 2025 (Unit 2).6 Those licenses provide for a spent fuel pool at each DCPP unit that is capable of storing more than 4

[DC ISFSI] Updated Final Safety Analysis Report at 4.1-1 (Rev. 9, Dec. 2021) (ML22032A074) (DC ISFSI FSAR).

5 Letter from C. Markley, NRC, to M. Zawalick, PG&E, Application for Renewal of the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation License No. SNM-2511 - Accepted for Review (EPID No. L-2022-RNW-0007) (Sept. 8, 2022) (ML22238A239).

6

[PG&E, DCPP] Unit 1, Docket No. 50-275, Facility Operating License, License No. DPR-80 at 12 (ML053140349) (expires Nov. 2, 2024); [PG&E, DCPP] Unit 2, Docket No. 50-323, Facility Operating License, License No. DPR-82 at 10 (ML053140353) (expires Aug. 26, 2025).

3 20-years of permanently discharged spent fuel.7 Thus, together with the DC ISFSI, PG&E currently has the ability to store 60 years worth of spent fuel at the Diablo Canyon site.

At the time the DC ISFSI LRA was filed in March 2022, PG&E planned to shut down and decommission the DCPP units at the end of their respective license terms pursuant to a 2018 resource planning decision by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).8 However, on September 2, 2022, the Governor of California signed Senate Bill No. 846, which invalidated the prior CPUC decision and directed PG&E to seek renewal of the operating licenses for DCPP.9 Accordingly, on October 31, 2022, PG&E submitted to the NRC a document that, among other things, requested an exemption from the NRCs timely renewal regulation.10 On March 2, 2023, the NRC granted that exemption, which effectively allows an application for renewal of the DCPP operating licenses to be considered timely if filed on or before December 31, 2023.11 As of the date of this pleading, no such application has been filed.

C.

Procedural History On January 10, 2023, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity allowing the public to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene in this license renewal 7

See Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the [DC ISFSI] at 1 (Oct. 24, 2003) (ML032970370) (explaining that the storage capacity of the spent fuel pools will be reached in 2006, which is more than 20 years after Units 1 and 2 were licensed in 1984 and 1985, respectively).

8 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Decision Approving Retirement of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Decision 18-01-022 (Jan. 11, 2018), available at https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M205/K423/205423920.PDF.

9 California Senate Bill No. 846, Diablo Canyon powerplant: extension of operations, (approved by Governor Sept. 2, 2022) (SB 846), text available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB846.

10 Letter from P. Gerfen, PG&E, to NRC Document Control Desk, Request to Resume Review of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant License Renewal Application or, Alternatively, for an Exemption from 10 CFR 2.109(b),

Concerning a Timely Renewal Application (Oct. 31, 2022) (ML22304A691).

11 See Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Exemption; issuance, 88 Fed. Reg. 14,395 (Mar. 8, 2023).

4 proceeding for the DC ISFSI by March 13, 2023 (Hearing Opportunity Notice).12 As noted therein, such requests and petitions are subject to mandatory filing and service through the NRCs E-Filing system, pursuant to codified NRC requirements.13 Contrary to those requirements, at 10:52 PM on March 13, 2023, SLOMFP transmitted the Petition as an attachment to an email sent to six email addresses.14 On March 14, 2023, SLOMFP filed and served the Petition via the NRCs E-Filing system.15 On March 29, 2023, the Board issued an Initial Prehearing Order declaring the Petition timely and establishing April 7, 2023, as the deadline for answers to the Petition.16 PG&E timely files this Answer to SLOMFPs Petition.

III.

THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE SLOMFP HAS NOT PROPOSED AN ADMISSIBLE CONTENTION In its Petition, SLOMFP proposes two contentions. The first alleges a failure to satisfy certain NRC safety requirements, and the second alleges a failure to satisfy NRC environmental review requirements. As explained below, most of these claims rest on mistaken readings of documents or regulatory requirements, and none satisfy all six admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f). Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.

12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; License renewal application; receipt; notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene, 88 Fed. Reg. 1,431 (Jan. 10, 2023) (Hearing Opportunity Notice).

13 See id. at 1,432 (discussing e-filing and the requirements in 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.302(a) and 2.305(c)).

14 See Petition at [PDF page 26 of 27] (first certificate of service).

15 See Petition at [PDF page 27 of 27] (second certificate of service).

16 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing Order) at 2 (Mar. 29, 2023) (unpublished)

(ML23088A151). It is undisputed that SLOMFPs 3/13/23 email did not comply with the mandatory requirements in 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.302(a) and 2.305(c) and that SLOMFP did not request or receive an exemption permitting an alternative filing or service method. SLOMFP also did not identify good cause for failing to effect proper filing or service until 3/14/23. Accordingly, PG&E acknowledges but respectfully disagrees with the Boards declaration that the Petition was timely.

5 A.

Contention Admissibility Criteria Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a)(1), a hearing request may be granted only if the presiding officer determines that the petitioner has demonstrated standing and has proposed at least one admissible contention that meets all of the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

Thereunder, to be admissible, a proposed contention must: (i) provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (ii) provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) demonstrate that the issue raised is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv) demonstrate that the issue raised is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; (v) provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions, including references to the specific sources and documents that support the petitioners position and upon which the petitioner intends to rely; and (vi) provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.

Failure to satisfy any one of these six admissibility criteria requires that a proposed contention be rejected.17 These criteria are strict by design.18 The rules were toughened...

in 1989 because in prior years licensing boards had admitted and litigated numerous contentions that appeared to be based on little more than speculation.19 The petitioner alone bears the affirmative burden to satisfy these criteria.20 17 See Changes to Adjudicatory Process; Final Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182, 2,221 (Jan. 14, 2004); see also Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318, 325 (1999) (citation omitted).

18 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001).

19 Id. (quoting Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999)).

20 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-15-23, 82 NRC 321, 325, 329 (2015)

(stating that [t]he proponent of a contention is responsible for formulating the contention and providing the

6 B.

Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at the Diablo Canyon Site Before proceeding to a discussion of SLOMFPs two proposed contentions, one matter bears consideration as an overarching matter. Specifically, SLOMFP suggests that, if the operating licenses for DCPP are renewed, and if the units continue to operate for 20 more years, then PG&E will be required to expand its specific-licensed DC ISFSI to accommodate all 60-years worth of spent fuel. But, as noted above,21 between the specific-licensed DC ISFSI (dry storage) and the DCPP spent fuel pools (wet storage), PG&E already has capacity to store 60-years worth of spent fuelsufficient to allow operation through an assumed full DCPP renewal period. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that additional dry storage is desired at some point in the future (e.g., after permanent shutdown to support decommissioning), PG&E could elect to develop that capacity on a separate ISFSI under its general license pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 72.210.22 Furthermore, a possibility remains that, at some point during the 40-year renewal period of the DC ISFSI, either a consolidated interim storage facility or a permanent repository may become available.23 In essence, neither the need to construct additional storage, nor the need to do so at the existing specific-licensed DC ISFSI, is a foregone conclusion. And PG&E certainly has not made a decision to do so at this time. Importantly, if and when such a decision is made, it will be subject to a separate regulatory process. SLOMFPs apparent belief otherwise is a fundamental misconception that undermines nearly all of the arguments presented necessary support to satisfy the contention admissibility requirements and it is Petitioners responsibility, not the Boards, to formulate contentions and to provide the necessary information to satisfy the basis requirement for admission) (citation omitted).

21 See supra Sections II.A-B.

22 In fact, a significant majority of power reactor licensees opt to use this general license. See NRC, U.S.

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations at 2 (Jan. 5, 2023) (ML23005A251) (showing 68 plants using general ISFSI licenses, 16 using specific ISFSI licenses, and 4 plants using both).

23 See generally ERS at F-1 (discussing the uncertainty associated with the timing of these options).

7 in the Petition, including those in both Proposed Contentions A and B, which are inadmissible for these and many other reasons detailed below.

C.

Proposed Contention A Is Inadmissible Pursuant to NRC regulations,24 the safety portion of an ISFSI LRA must contain the following information:

(1) Time Limited Aging Analyses (TLAAs) that demonstrate that structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform their intended function for the requested period of extended operation;25 (2) A description of the Aging Management Programs (AMPs) for management of issues associated with aging that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety;26 (3) Design basis information as documented in the most recently updated [Final Safety Analysis Report];27 (4) An updated Decommissioning Funding Plan (DFP) that accounts for changes in costs and contamination since the previous DFP was submitted;28 and (5) Financial Qualifications (FQ) information demonstrating that the licensee will have the necessary funds available to cover estimated operating costs over the planned life of the ISFSI.29 In Proposed Contention A, SLOMFP asserts that information in the LRA is incorrect and insufficient to satisfy NRC safety regulations at: 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e), which pertains to financial qualifications; 10 C.F.R. § 72.30(a) and (b), which relate to decommissioning funding; and 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart F, which establishes General Design Criteria (GDC) for 24 The primary NRC guidance for the safety portion of the application is NUREG-1927, Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Specific Licenses and Certificates of Compliance for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel; Final Report (Rev. 1, June 2016) (ML16179A148).

25 10 C.F.R. § 72.42(a)(1).

26 Id. § 72.42(a)(2).

27 Id. § 72.42(b).

28 Id. § 72.30(c).

29 Id. § 72.22(e).

8 ISFSIs.30 In general, SLOMFP argues that these portions of the LRA are based on the incorrect assumption that PG&E will retire [the DCPP units] in 2024 and 2025.31 However, as explained below, none of these claims provide a sufficient basis for an admissible contention because they are rooted in a mistaken reading of the DC ISFSI Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),32 an incorrect understanding of the current spent fuel storage capacity at the DC site, and other misconceptions regarding applicable regulatory requirements.

1.

The FSAR and GDC SLOMFP maintains that PG&E will be required to expand its specific-licensed ISFSI, if the DCPP licenses are renewed, based on a single statement in the DC ISFSI FSAR (which was last updated in 2021) that the ISFSI has sufficient storage space for DCPP spent fuel through plant decommissioning.33 However, SLOMFPs suggestion that this selective quotation somehow reflects an obligation to expand the DC ISFSI is baseless. PG&E unquestionably has not committed, and is not seeking, to expand the DC ISFSI to accommodate additional spent fuel. To the extent SLOMFP suggests that PG&E has some obligation to update the DC ISFSI FSAR now to clarify that statement or otherwise reflect the possibility that the operating licenses for DCPP may be renewed (at some point in the future), it identifies no support, raises issues beyond the scope of this proceeding, and appears to challenge NRC regulations.

30 Petition at 5.

31 Id.

32 See generally DC ISFSI FSAR.

33 Petition at 6 (quoting DC ISFSI FSAR at 4.2-1). Notably, the DC ISFSI FSAR explains elsewhere, in language that SLOMFPs selective quotation ignores, that the DC ISFSI is capable of storing the spent fuel generated by DCPP Units 1 and 2 through 2024 and 2025, respectively. DC ISFSI FSAR at 1.1-3.

9 First, the ISFSI FSAR is not subject to challenge in this proceeding.34 The FSAR is, in essence, a current licensing basis document; any challenge thereto must be raised via a request for an enforcement proceeding under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206. Thus, a direct challenge to the FSAR is out-of-scope here, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

Second, updates to ISFSI FSARs are required to be filed every 24 months,35 whereas the DC ISFSI FSAR was last updated in December 2021. Thus, SLOMFP has not identified any non-compliance because PG&E is not required to submit another update until December 2023.

To the extent SLOMFP demands an update now, it is seeking to impose requirements that are stricter than those imposed by the agency. Such claims are effectively challenges to NRC regulations, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.335, and beyond the scope of NRC adjudicatory proceedings, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).36 Third, SLOMFP identifies no requirement that FSARs reflect potential future licensing actions. Nor does any such requirement exist. It is well settled that the NRC requires FSARs to reflect status quo information; indeed, even reactor FSARs are not required to be updated to reflect a pending license renewal until after the renewed license is issued.37 Ultimately, none of SLOMFPs claims regarding the FSAR identify any deficiency in the LRA, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

34 SLOMFP notes that certain portions of the FSAR are referenced in the LRA. However, SLOMFP identifies no portion of the LRA that references or incorporates the statement that the ISFSI has sufficient storage space for DCPP spent fuel through plant decommissioning. See Petition at 6. Nor does the LRA contain any such incorporation by reference.

35 10 C.F.R. § 72.70(c)(6).

36 See Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC (Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-15-4, 81 NRC 156, 167 (2015); NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-5, 75 NRC 301, 315 (2012); GPU Nuclear, Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-6, 51 NRC 193, 206 (2000); Curators of the Univ. of Mo. (TRUMP-S Project), CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71, 170-71 (1995).

37 Cf., e.g., 10 C.F.R. 54.37(b) (for reactors, the FSAR is not required to be updated to reflect a renewed license until after the renewed license is issued).

10 Finally, SLOMFP also relies on its inaccurate reading of the FSAR to assert that PG&E will have to make design changes to the ISFSI... in order to satisfy the [GDC].38 Although not entirely clear, this statement is reasonably interpreted as presenting two basic claims. First, this statement appears to suggest that any expansion of the DC ISFSI would need to address the GDC. There is no dispute on that particular point, but any ISFSI expansion efforts would require a separate licensing action. Second, SLOMFPs statement appears to suggest that PG&E was required to include that separate licensing action, seeking NRC approval for an expansion of the DC ISFSI, as part of the DC ISFSI LRA. However, SLOMFP identifies no basis, whatsoever, for that position. And no such requirement exists in 10 C.F.R. Part 72. As noted above, PG&E is seeking to renew the DC ISFSI license based on its existing design and capacity. Moreover, this assertion relies on SLOMFPs erroneous belief that PG&E is required to construct additional dry storage capacity at the specific-licensed DC ISFSI as a pre-condition of renewing the operating licenses for DCPP, or the license for the DC ISFSI, or both. As explained above,39 that belief is factually mistaken on multiple grounds. And SLOMFP identifies no legal argument that supports its position.

Ultimately, none of SLOMFPs arguments as to the DC ISFSI FSAR or the GDC provide any basis for an admissible contention because they raise issues beyond the scope of this proceeding, are unsupported, and fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the LRA, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (v), and (vi).

38 Petition at 7.

39 See supra Section III.B.

11

2.

Financial Qualifications NRC regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e) require ISFSI LRAs to present information demonstrating that the licensee will have the necessary funds available to cover estimated operating costs through the licensed life of the ISFSI.40 PG&E addresses this requirement in Section 1.3.6 of the LRA.41 More specifically, PG&E explains that [t]he source of funds to operate the DC ISFSI until the DCPP Unit 1 permanent shutdown in November 2024 is the General Rate Case process regulated by the CPUC to set customer rates and that the source of funds to operate... the DC ISFSI starting in November 2024... will include the PG&E Decommissioning Trust Fund [DTF].42 In Proposed Contention A, SLOMFP argues that this information fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e) because PG&E may operate [DCPP for] an additional twenty years.43 However, as explained below, these claims fail to identify an admissible contention.

First, SLOMFP provides no support for its overarching claim that financial projections in the DC ISFSI LRA are somehow required to assume NRC approval of a separate, potential, future licensing application for renewal of the DCPP licenses. Indeed, NRC guidance and Commission precedent suggest that doing so is disfavored and likely prohibited. For example, in estimating the future value of a decommissioning trust fund, NRC guidance allows licensees to credit certain projected fund growth for the remaining years of the license, but cautions that this does not include the years associated with a future renewal period unless and until the NRC 40 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e). If the LRA is granted, the DC ISFSI license would expire on March 22, 2064.

41 LRA at 1-3 to 1-4.

42 Id.

43 Petition at 5.

12 has actually approved the renewal.44 Furthermore, it appears that the only time the Commission permits applicants to rely on financial projections that are contingent on other speculative licensing approvals is when the requests for both approvals are inextricably intertwined, submitted concurrently, reviewed in tandem, and for which the approval of either requires the approval of both.45 That certainly is not the case here. Ultimately, the LRA properly reflects the status quo. And SLOMFP identifies zero support for its suggestion that PG&E was required, for purposes of satisfying 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e), to reflect a projected scenario that is not yet authorized by state law,46 or to prejudge the outcome of a future application to the NRC for renewal of the DCPP licenses.

Second, as a practical matter, the scenario contemplated in the LRAin which DCPP shuts down as of the units current expiration datespresents a more conservative financial scenario than the one postulated by SLOMFP.47 Under the LRA scenario, PG&E would no longer recover ISFSI operating costs through the General Rate Case process and, instead, would begin withdrawing monies from the DTF in 2024. In contrast, if DCPP continues to operate, PG&E could postpone DTF withdrawals to a later date (allowing the DTF to continue to grow) and fund ISFSI operations via the ratemaking process. SLOMFP identifies no requirement and certainly no expert or other support associated with satisfaction of 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e) that would compel PG&E to provide additional analysis beyond the conservative scenario, based on 44 Regulatory Guide 1.159, Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors at 18 (Rev. 2, Oct. 2011) (ML112160012).

45 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Site), CLI-22-8, 96 NRC 1, 65-66 (2022).

46 SB 846 (Section 9) amended the California Public Utilities code (Section 712.8(c)(2)(A)) to require the CPUC to authorize, by the end of 2023, the extended operation of DCPP. But the CPUC has not yet done so.

47 See generally Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-22-1, 95 NRC 1, 5 (2022)

(recognizing that financial projections assuming earlier shutdown dates are conservative).

13 present circumstances, already contemplated in the LRA.48 Accordingly, SLOMFPs demand that PG&E present a less-conservative financial projection is unsupported and fails to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the LRA on a material issue of law or fact, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi).

Third, SLOMFP asserts that the LRA does not account for the DC ISFSIs increased operating costs that allegedly would arise if DCPP continues to operate for an additional 20 years.49 However, this conclusory statement is unaccompanied by any explanation as to which costs are allegedly affected or any support showing how such unidentified costs would, in fact, increase. Nor is any such increase apparent. The DC ISFSI is designed to store the spent fuel generated during the first 40 years of operation of DCPP regardless of whether the plant continues to operate or not. Moreover, a statement in the Introduction section of the Petition suggests that SLOMFPs financial qualifications argument relates to a speculative redesigned ISFSI.50 But, as noted throughout this Answer, PG&E has no plans to redesign the DC ISFSI to add additional storage pads to accommodate spent fuel beyond the initial 40-year operating period, and that certainly is not part of the ISFSI license that PG&E is seeking to renew here.

Thus, SLOMFPs baseless speculation regarding operating costs does not provide a basis for an admissible contention because it lacks adequate support, as required by 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(v), and fails to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the LRA, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

48 See also Braidwood, CLI-22-1, 95 NRC at 7 (confirming, consistent with longstanding Commission case law, that financial qualifications discussions are not required to present absolutely certain predictions).

49 Petition at 7.

50 Id. at 2.

14 Fourth, SLOMFP suggests that, if the DCPP licenses are extended, then PG&E may need to fund ISFSI operations by means other than the [DTF].51 However, SLOMFP fails to identify any reason that observation amounts to a genuine dispute with the LRA on a material issue of law or fact. As noted in the LRA, during periods of plant operation, PG&E recovers ISFSI operating costs through the General Rate Case process regulated by the CPUC.52 But SLOMFP does not allege in its Petition that continued operation of DCPP would render PG&E unable to cover ISFSI operating costs through this normal processnor could it, because the State of California directed PG&E to seek renewal of the DCPP operating licenses, and recovery of ISFSI operating costs during any potential renewal period is expressly authorized by state statute.53 More broadly, the Commission has previously confirmed that, as a rate-regulated utility, PG&E is entitled to a presumption that it is financially qualified to operate the DC ISFSI because reasonable and prudent costs of safe operation will be recovered through the ratemaking process.54 SLOMFP offers nothingno explanation or alleged supportto rebut this presumption. Accordingly, these claims lack adequate support, as required by 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(v), and fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the LRA, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

51 Id. at 5-6.

52 LRA at 1-3 to 1-4.

53 SB 846 (Section 9) amended the California Public Utilities code (Section 712.8(h)(1)) to authorize recovery of all reasonable costs and expenses necessary to operate [DCPP] beyond the current expiration dates and (Section 5) amended the California Public Resources Code (Section 25548.1(d)) to confirm that such operations include spent fuel management and storage facilities.

54 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-03-12, 58 NRC 185, 192-193 (2003).

15 Ultimately, SLOMFPs financial qualifications claims are beyond the scope of this proceeding, unsupported, and fail to raise a genuine dispute with the LRA, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (v), and (vi).

3.

Decommissioning Funding NRC regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 72.30(c) require ISFSI LRAs to provide updated information regarding the ISFSIs decommissioning funding plan (DFP). Among other things, the DFP must provide reasonable assurance... that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.55 PG&E addresses this requirement in Section 1.4 and Appendix G of the LRA,56 which also incorporate by reference PG&Es most recent DFP (submitted to the NRC on December 14, 2021) and portions of the ISFSI FSAR. In Proposed Contention A, SLOMFP argues that this information fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 72.30(a) and (b) because PG&E has not addressed the cost of decommissioning the ISFSI if it is used to store a quantity of spent fuel that is half again as large as the quantity that has been generated and will be generated during the reactors initial license terms.57 However, as explained below, this claim fails to identify an admissible contention.

Simply put, the DFP is not required to calculate the cost of decommissioning the ISFSI under a scenario in which it stores 60 years worth of spent fuel because PG&E is not proposing to expand the existing ISFSI capacity for that purpose or to store that quantity of spent fuel on the ISFSI. Indeed, the current ISFSI is designed to hold only 40 years of spent fuel. For PG&E to be able to store more than 40 years of spent fuel there, it would need to design, license, and construct an expansion of the current ISFSI. PG&E has not proposed to do so. And such a 55 10 C.F.R. § 72.30(b)(1).

56 LRA at 1-4 and app. G.

57 Petition at 6.

16 proposal is not a foregone conclusion.58 At a fundamental level, SLOMFP identifies no reason PG&E is required, in order to satisfy the decommissioning funding requirements in 10 C.F.R.

§ 72.30, to analyze a speculative future licensing action that has not been proposed by the licensee. Should PG&E choose to expand the spent fuel storage capacity of the DC ISFSI in the future, it would be obligated to consider the attendant decommissioning funding requirements at that time. However, for purposes of license renewal, PG&Es analysis of decommissioning funding for the current DC ISFSI fully satisfies the requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 72.30.

SLOMFP does not demonstrate otherwise. Thus, its argument is unsupported and fails to raise a material dispute with the LRA, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi). And, to the extent SLOMFP insists that the DFP should include analyses of speculative, separate future licensing actions, it is seeking to impose requirements that are stricter than those imposed by the agencywhich raises impermissible matters beyond the scope of this adjudicatory proceeding, contrary to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.335 and 2.309(f)(1)(iii).59 Lastly, to the extent SLOMFPs claims could be interpreted to suggest that ISFSI decommissioning costs may increase as a result of the possible delayed decommissioning of DCPP, it fails to identify support for such a claim or otherwise point to any specific deficiency in the existing DFP, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi). Ultimately, SLOMFPs decommissioning funding claims are beyond the scope of this proceeding, unsupported, and fail to raise a genuine dispute with the LRA, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (v), and (vi).

58 See supra Section III.B.

59 See supra note 36.

17 The Board should find Proposed Contention A inadmissible because SLOMFPs safety-related arguments as to the DC ISFSI FSAR, the GDC in 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart F, financial qualifications requirements in Section 72.22(3), and decommissioning funding requirements in Section 72.30, individually and collectively fail to satisfy all of the requirements in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1).

D.

Proposed Contention B Is Inadmissible Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the NRC also will complete an environmental evaluation, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 51, to determine if the preparation of an environmental impact statement is warranted or if an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact are appropriate.

Specifically, the NRC rules governing the environmental information required to be presented in an ISFSI LRA are set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 51.60.60 Thereunder, an applicant is required to submit a document titled Supplement to Applicants Environmental Report (also known as an Environmental Report Supplement). Unlike the comprehensive Environmental Report that must be submitted upon initial licensing, an Environmental Report Supplement is not required to contain all of the information specified in 10 C.F.R. § 51.45. Rather, as contemplated in 10 C.F.R. § 51.60, the Environmental Report Supplement is a far more streamlined document that may be limited to updating or supplementing prior information to reflect any significant environmental change since the previous environmental review.61 60 The primary NRC guidance on this portion of the review is provided in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs; Final Report (Aug. 2003)

(ML032450279).

61 10 C.F.R. § 51.60(a) (emphasis added).

18 As relevant here, 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(b) requires environmental reports to contain, among other things, a statement of [the proposed actions] purposes. PG&E addresses this requirement in Section F1.1 of the ERS.62 Specifically, PG&E states that the purpose and the need for the proposed action is to provide for continued temporary dry storage of spent nuclear fuel generated from operation of DCPP at the DC ISFSI until facilities are available for interim or permanent disposal.63 As an initial matter, there is nothing remarkable about this statement, as it generally reflects the purpose of nearly every ISFSI in the country. But SLOMFP nevertheless asserts that this statement is inadequate because it is based on the assumption that the reactors will close when their operating licenses expire in 2024 and 2025.64 However, as detailed below, SLOMFP appears to misread the ERS and fails to identify any way in which the ERS purportedly relies on this alleged assumption. This contention also invokes other concepts, such as cumulative impacts, alternatives, and State policies. But, again, SLOMFP fails to identify any specific defect in the ERS or any unmet requirement in 10 C.F.R. Part 51.

Accordingly, Proposed Contention B is inadmissible on multiple grounds.

1.

Purpose & Need First, SLOMFP argues that the ERSs purpose and need statement is faulty because it discusses only the purposes and needs of the ISFSI that are related to continued storage of spent fuel after the reactor license termination dates.65 However, that claim is baseless and untrue.

The plain text of the purpose and need statement in the ERS invokes the continued storage of 62 See ERS at F-1 to F-2 (discussing the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action); id. at F-4, tbl.F1.4-1 (summary table showing that the statement of purposes requirement in 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(b) is addressed in ERS Section F1.1).

63 Id. at F-2.

64 Petition at 9.

65 Id.

19 spent nuclear fuel generated from operation of DCPP.66 Contrary to SLOMFPs claim, that statement does not distinguish or otherwise limit such storage to occurring only after the

[current] reactor license termination dates.67 And its unsupported claim fails to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the ERS, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v)-(vi).

Second, SLOMFP derides the purpose and need statement in the ERS because it does not discuss purposes and needs related to continued operation of the reactors and generation of more spent fuel.68 However, SLOMFP identifies no requirement to do so. Nor does any such requirement exist. To be clear, PG&E has no current plans to construct additional pads at the DC ISFSI to store additional spent fuel, regardless of whether the DCPP operating licenses are renewed. More to the point, it cannot do so under its existing ISFSI license or proposed renewal.

And SLOMFP does not claim or demonstrate otherwise. Thus, these unsupported claims also fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the ERS, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v)-(vi).

Next, SLOMFP asserts that the ERS does not explain how or whether the original purposes and needs for the ISFSI have been addressed, whether they remain current, or how they have changed.69 However, SLOMFP does not identify any regulatory provision in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 that purportedly requires any of these things. Nor does any such requirement exist. To the extent SLOMFP demands that an ERS should include such information, it is seeking to impose requirements beyond those imposed by the agency. Thus, its demand raises impermissible matters beyond the scope of this adjudicatory proceeding.70 66 Id. at F-2.

67 Petition at 9.

68 Id.

69 Id. at 9-10.

70 See supra note 36.

20 Lastly, SLOMFP makes certain speculative statements related to continued operation of DCPP that do not have any apparent connection to the purpose and need statement in the ERS.

SLOMFP speculates that PG&E may not be able to operate the reactors because it will run[] out of storage space in the spent fuel pools.71 But that statement is both irrelevant and factually inaccurate. As noted above, potential continued operation of the reactors is beyond the scope of the DC ISFSI LRA. Further, PG&E currently can accommodate 60 years worth of spent fuel at the DCPP site;72 thus, the current storage capacity does not impose any impediment to PG&Es ability to continue to operate the reactors for a total of 60 years. SLOMFP also suggests that PG&E may not be able to decommission the pools if they contain spent fuel.73 This conjecture around future decommissioning activities does not support an admissible contention because it does not expose any deficiency in the purpose and need statement for this licensing actionor the ERS more broadly. SLOMFP does not identify any portion of the ERS that relies on an assumption as to the timing of the decommissioning of the DCPP spent fuel pools, which is clearly outside the scope of this licensing action.

In sum, none of these claims support SLOMFPs overarching assertion that the purpose and need statement is excessively narrow,74 or otherwise identify an adequately supported dispute with the LRA on a material issue of law or fact that is within the scope of this proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (v), and (vi).

71 Petition at 10.

72 See supra Section III.B.

73 Petition at 10.

74 Id. at 12.

21

2.

Alternatives and Cumulative Impacts Although Proposed Contention B focuses on alleged deficiencies in the purpose and need statement in the ERS, SLOMFP further asserts that the alleged deficiencies therein somehow affect the alternatives analysis [and] the cumulative impact analysis in the Environmental Assessment.75 As noted above, Proposed Contention B does not identify any deficiencies in the purpose and need statement. Thus, SLOMFPs claim that these non-existent deficiencies somehow affect other analyses is without basis.

Moreover, SLOMFP does not attempt to identify, with the specificity required for an admissible contention, any alleged deficiency as to either alternatives or cumulative impacts.

The extent of SLOMFPs discussion of these issues is limited to a suggestion that they somehow may be affected by the allegedly-too-narrow purpose and need statement, and a citation to certain regulations that purportedly relate to these topics.76 SLOMFP does not identify any cumulative impact, or any reasonable alternative, that allegedly has not been considered. Far more is required for an admissible contention. The Commission has long held that parties are entitled to be told with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced and what relief is being sought.77 Vague claims, such as SLOMFPs here, simply do not satisfy the minimum 75 Id. at 10, 14. In Proposed Contention B, SLOMFP repeatedly complains about allegedly inadequate or missing information in the Environmental Assessment. However, the NRC Staffs EA for this proceeding has not yet been issued. Thus, it is not entirely clear whether SLOMFP is referring to the EA that was issued for the initial licensing of the ISFSI or if it is intending to reference PG&Es ERS. For purposes of this pleading PG&E assumes it is the latter.

76 Notably, SLOMFPs citations to 10 C.F.R. § 52.30(a)(1)(i)-(iii) are unclear because no such regulation exists.

To the extent SLOMFP intended to cite 10 C.F.R. § 51.30(a)(1)(i)-(iii), those citations are still inapt because they pertain to the content of an Environmental Assessment prepared by the NRC Staff, not an ERS prepared by an applicant. Moreover, the purpose of SLOMFPs citation to the continued storage rule in 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.23(c) is unclear, given that the regulation merely provides that applicants need provide no discussion of that topic.

77 Kan. Gas & Elec. Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-279, 1 NRC 559, 576 (1975).

22 basis and specificity requirements because the Board and other parties are not required to search for a needle that may be in a haystack.78 SLOMFPs approach here stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by petitioners in the Prairie Island ISFSI proceeding. There, the Board admitted a proposed contention in which petitioners asserted that the applicant had not evaluated the possible cumulative impacts associated with an expansion of the specific-licensed ISFSI.79 However, unlike SLOMFP here, the petitioners in that proceeding affirmatively identified several examples of cumulative impacts that allegedly were not considered.80 In other words, the petitioners in the Prairie Island ISFSI proceeding did not rely on mere conclusory assertions, as SLOMFP has done here.

Moreover, the Prairie Island ISFSI proceeding is factually distinguishable from the instant proceeding. There, the Board determined that an expansion of the ISFSI was likely81 because the applicant had an obvious need for more spent fuel storage capacity, had developed plans for such an expansion, and had even applied to the state public utilities commission for a Certificate of Need to expand the ISFSI to accommodate more spent fuel.82 Here, PG&E has not submitted any applications for any local, state, or federal regulatory approvals seeking additional spent fuel storage capacity. That is entirely unsurprising given that PG&E has not yet submitted a new application (subsequent to the passage of SB 846) to renew the DCPP operating licenses and, as explained above, it remains possible that no additional spent fuel storage capacity will be needed 78 Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-89-3, 29 NRC 234, 241 (1989).

79 N. States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation),

LBP-12-24, 76 NRC 503, 511-13 (2012).

80 Id. at 511. See also id. at 512 (discussing the petitioners identification of alleged impacts from construction, traffic, and disturbance of archaeological and cultural resources).

81 Id. at 513.

82 Id. at 512.

23 at the Diablo Canyon site.83 Ultimately, SLOMFPs claims regarding alternatives and cumulative impacts are insufficiently supported to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the LRA, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

3.

State Statutes and Regulatory Proceedings Lastly, SLOMFP complains that the ERS addresses neither a California state law regarding construction of new reactors nor a 2021 order in a CPUC proceeding regarding solicitation of spent fuel storage system vendors.84 However, SLOMFP again identifies no provision in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 that allegedly imposes a requirement on PG&E to do so in the ERS. Nor does any such requirement exist. Ultimately, these claims are immaterial to the instant NRC license renewal proceeding and fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the LRA on a material issue of law or fact, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv) and (vi).

First, SLOMFP complains that the ERS does not address the inconsistency of creating more spent fuel storage demands at Diablo Canyon with State law imposing a moratorium on construction of new nuclear reactors.85 However, SLOMFP makes no connection between its demand and the instant proceeding, which certainly does not involve issuance of a construction permit for a new reactor. Apparently, SLOMFP believes there exists an inconsistency between the possible continued operation of DCPP, Units 1 and 2 (which would produce additional spent fuel) and the new reactor moratorium (which was rooted in concerns about spent fuel storage).

But again, SLOMFP is improperly blurring the lines between renewal of the DC ISFSI license (which is the sole focus of this proceeding) and the potential renewal of the DCPP operating licenses. Moreover, the State of California does not appear to share this belief, given that 83 See supra Section III.B.

84 Petition at 10-11, 15-16.

85 Id. at 10.

24 SB 846passed by the California legislature and signed by the California Governorexplicitly directed PG&E to pursue continued operation of DCPP. In any event, the requirements of state law are for state bodies to determine, and questions regarding alleged conflicts between two state statutes are far beyond the jurisdiction of NRC adjudicatory proceedings and far beyond the scope of the present DC ISFSI LRA proceeding.86 SLOMFPs second claim fares no better. Therein, SLOMFP complains that the ERS does not address compliance with the States wish to expedite the transfer of spent fuel from the spent fuel pools to the ISFSI.87 In particular, SLOMFP cites certain provisions in a 2021 CPUC decision relating to PG&Es solicitation of vendors for spent fuel storage systems, and performance specifications regarding the timing of transfers from the DCPP spent fuel pool to the DC ISFSI.88 Again, SLOMFP fails to make any connection between the instant NRC proceeding for renewal of the DC ISFSI license and the cited CPUC decision, which pre-dates the States passage of SB 846 repealing the CPUC decision to retire DCPP. Nevertheless, as with SLOMFPs previous argument, questions regarding the consistency of this 2021 CPUC decision with a California state statute directing PG&E to pursue continued operation of DCPP are well beyond the NRCs jurisdiction.89 Ultimately, SLOMFP has not satisfied its obligation under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv) to demonstrate that these claims raise a material issue. A material issue is one that would make 86 See N. States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), ALAB-464, 7 NRC 372, 375 (1978) (stating that [t]he requirements of state law are beyond our ken) (citation omitted).

87 Petition at 11.

88 Id. (citing CPUC Decision 21-09-003, Adopting Settlement, Section 5 at 27-28 (Sept. 9, 2021) (provisions 5.1 and 5.2)).

89 Tyrone Energy Park, ALAB-464, 7 NRC at 375.

25 a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.90 The petitioner must demonstrate that the application deficiency asserted in the contention would impact the grant or denial of the pending application.91 SLOMFPs references to extraneous state matters with no obvious connection to the instant proceeding fall far short of satisfying this requirement.

The Board should find Proposed Contention B inadmissible because SLOMFPs environmental claims regarding the purpose and need statement, alternatives and cumulative impacts, and state law matters, individually and collectively fail to satisfy all of the requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

IV.

CONCLUSION The Board should deny the Petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a) because it does not propose an admissible contention that meets all of the admissibility requirements in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f).

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty RYAN K. LIGHTY, ESQ.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5274 Ryan.Lighty@morganlewis.com Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

TIMOTHY P. MATTHEWS, ESQ.

PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5527 (202) 739-5796 Timothy.Matthews@morganlewis.com Paul.Bessette@morganlewis.com Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Dated in Washington, D.C.

This 7th day of April 2023 90 Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 333-34 (1999)

(citation omitted).

91 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 & 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 62 (2008).

DB1/ 137119035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of:

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation)

Docket No. 72-26-ISFSI-MLR April 7, 2023 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYS ANSWER OPPOSING SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACES HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) in the above-captioned docket.

Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty RYAN K. LIGHTY, ESQ.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5274 Ryan.Lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company