ML15294A301: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 10/21/2015
| issue date = 10/21/2015
| title = Memorandum and Order LBP-15-29 (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
| title = Memorandum and Order LBP-15-29 (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
| author name = Arnold G S, Ryerson P S, Trikouros N G
| author name = Arnold G, Ryerson P, Trikouros N
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:LBP 15-29 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman Dr. Gary S. Arnold Nicholas G. Trikouros   In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY  (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
{{#Wiki_filter:LBP 15-29 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Docket No. 50-275-LR Docket No. 50-323-LR ASLBP No. 10-900-01-LR-BD01 October 21, 2015 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman Dr. Gary S. Arnold Nicholas G. Trikouros In the Matter of                                     Docket No. 50-275-LR Docket No. 50-323-LR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 10-900-01-LR-BD01 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)                                              October 21, 2015 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
This proceeding concerns an application by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) to renew its operating licenses for two nuclear power reactors at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant located near San Luis Obispo, California.1   Before the Board are motions (1) by intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) to file an Amended Contention C,2 and (2) by PG&E for summary disposition on                                                 1 The background of this proceeding is set forth in prior decisions of the Board and of the Commission. See, e.g., LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 273-75 (2010); CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429-31 (2011); LBP-15-6, 81 NRC 314, 316 (2015); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Motions to File New Contentions) (Aug. 6, 2015) at 2-4 (unpublished) (August Order).
This proceeding concerns an application by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) to renew its operating licenses for two nuclear power reactors at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant located near San Luis Obispo, California.1 Before the Board are motions (1) by intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) to file an Amended Contention C,2 and (2) by PG&E for summary disposition on 1 The background of this proceeding is set forth in prior decisions of the Board and of the Commission. See, e.g., LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 273-75 (2010); CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429-31 (2011); LBP-15-6, 81 NRC 314, 316 (2015); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Motions to File New Contentions) (Aug. 6, 2015) at 2-4 (unpublished) (August Order).
2 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation) (July 31, 2015) (SLOMFP Motion). Contention EC-1.3  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the first motion, grant the second, and-in the absence of any contention-terminate the proceeding. I. BACKGROUND  On January 21, 2010, the NRC published a Federal Register notice of an opportunity for a hearing on PG&E's license renewal application.4  SLOMFP filed a timely petition to intervene, which the Board granted.5  After review by the Commission, one admitted contention-Contention EC-1-remained.6  Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission that alleges PG&E failed, in the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis required by 10 C.F.R.      § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), to discuss a recently-discovered fault (the Shoreline Fault) located near the plant.7    Subsequently, both SLOMFP and another petitioner moved to admit additional contentions,8 which the Board rejected.9  Of especial relevance is SLOMFP's motion, filed    April 15, 2015, to admit Contention C. Contention C alleged that-although PG&E's SAMA                                                  3 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (July 31, 2015). 4 75 Fed. Reg. 3493, 3493 (Jan. 21, 2010). 5 LBP-10-15, 72 NRC at 345. 6 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 437, 444, 452, 458. 7 Id. at 444; see also Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Mar. 22, 2010) at 8-20.
2 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation)
8 Friends of the Earth's Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Environmental Report for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 6, 2015); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 15, 2015) (Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D).
(July 31, 2015) (SLOMFP Motion).
9 LBP-15-06, 81 NRC at 315; August Order at 1.      analysis now addressed the Shoreline Fault-its analysis still failed to adequately account for seismic hazards at the facility.10  On July 31, 2015, shortly before the Board ruled the original Contention C inadmissible,11 SLOMFP moved to amend Contention C in response to PG&E's further updating its SAMA analysis.12  On the same day, PG&E moved for summary disposition on the only admitted contention (Contention EC-1). On August 13, 2015, the NRC Staff submitted a response supporting PG&E's summary disposition motion.13  On August 25, 2015, PG&E and the Staff submitted oppositions to SLOMFP's motion to amend Contention C.14  With the parties' consent, the Board allowed SLOMFP until September 14, 2015 to respond to PG&E's summary disposition motion and to reply in support of its motion to amend.15                                                        10 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-15. 11 August Order at 16-17. 12 SLOMFP Motion at 1-2. 13 NRC Staff Answer to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (Aug. 13, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to PG&E's Motion). 14 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Answer Opposing Proposed Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (PG&E Answer to SLOMFP's Motion); NRC Staff Answer to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion to File Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFP's Motion).
15 Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 3, 2015) (unpublished) (Order Granting Extension of Time); Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 25, 2015) (unpublished). II. ANALYSIS A. Motion to File Amended Contention C  As SLOMFP acknowledges, "Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFP's original Contention C,"16 which the Board previously rejected as inadmissible.17  As first proffered, Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis) stated: PG&E's SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&E's Amended ER) is inadequate to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&E's evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. As a result, PG&E's evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures. While PG&E claims that the "results and insights" of its 2014 "interim" probabilistic risk analysis ("PRA") (labeled "DCO3") are "reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis," by PG&E's own admission, DCO3 is only an "interim" PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis. Nor does PG&E's promise to "update" the DCO3 with the "results" of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&E's SAMA Analysis, because PG&E's 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&E's seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its "results" in a revised SAMA Analysis would not be sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.18  As more fully explained in our August 6, 2015 Memorandum and Order, the Board determined that, for three separate and independent reasons, Contention C failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).                                                    16 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Reply to Oppositions to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation) (Sept. 14, 2015) at 1 (Reply). 17 August Order at 16-17. 18 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-3 (internal citations omitted). First, insofar as Contention C alleged deficiencies per se in the seismic reevaluation that PG&E submitted in a Part 50 process designed to consider the adequacy of the Diablo Canyon plant's current licensing basis, the Board ruled that a Part 54 license renewal proceeding is not a proper forum for litigation of section 50.54(f) licensing basis issues with no connection to any SAMA.19  Second, SLOMFP failed to make a plausible showing that PG&E's approach to SAMAs was not reasonable.20  As the Commission has recognized, "[i]t will always be possible to envision and propose some alternate approach, some additional detail to include, some refinement."21  But that, without more, does not demonstrate a genuine dispute suitable for an evidentiary hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The proper question, the Commission has stated, "is not whether there are plausible alternative choices for use in the analysis, but whether the analysis that was done is reasonable under NEPA."22  "Unless a petitioner sets forth a supported contention pointing to an apparent error or deficiency that may have significantly skewed the environmental conclusions, there is no genuine material dispute for hearing."23                                                    19 August Order at 16. 20 Id. 21 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-15, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2012). 22 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-08, 75 NRC 393, 406 (2012) (citing NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC 301, 323 (2012)). Although a SAMA analysis considers safety issues, it is in actuality an environmental review that must be judged under NEPA's "rule of reason" and not under the safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. See Pilgrim, CLI-12-15, 75 NRC at 706-07.
23 Davis-Besse, CLI-12-08, 75 NRC at 407.      Third, although the purpose of SAMA analyses is to identify safety enhancements that would be cost beneficial to adopt,24 Contention C never addressed the potential impact of any particular seismic model change on the cost-benefit evaluations of the SAMAs that PG&E considered.25  As the Commission has emphasized, the relevant issue "is whether any additional SAMA should have been identified as potentially cost beneficial, not whether further analysis may refine the details in the SAMA NEPA analysis."26      Amended Contention C states: PG&E's SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&E's Amended Environmental Report), as supplemented by the SHU-SAMA Evaluation, is inadequate to satisfy NEPA or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&E's evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. In addition, PG&E fails to take into account all relevant earthquake characteristics that could affect the SAMA analysis, even though PG&E's seismic hazards analysis provides information about these characteristics. As a result of these deficiencies, PG&E's evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures. While PG&E claims that the "results and insights" of its 2014 "interim" probabilistic risk analysis ("PRA") (labeled "DCO3") are "reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis[,]" by PG&E's own admission, DCO3 is only an "interim" PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.
Nor does PG&E's recent "update" of the DCO3 with the "results" of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&E's SAMA Analysis, because PG&E's 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&E's seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its "results" in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is not sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.                                                  24 See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 290-91 (2010), pet. for reconsideration denied, CLI-10-15, 71 NRC 479 (2010).
25 See August Order at 17. 26 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-11, 69 NRC 529, 533 (2009).
Finally, the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is unreasonably restricted to the consideration of the effects of spectral acceleration on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The only information from the SSC or SHS Report that is presented in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is a table showing seismic initiating event frequencies. The SHU-SAMA Evaluation fails to consider other measures of ground motion that could cause reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts on Diablo Canyon that are more extreme than or different from the impacts of spectral acceleration. These factors include surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.27  Beyond recognizing that PG&E most recently updated its SAMA analysis on July 1, 2015, Amended Contention C differs from the original contention in one significant way. SLOMFP now alleges that PG&E unreasonably restricted its analysis to considering the effects of spectral acceleration. It contends that PG&E should also have analyzed other measures of ground motion, including surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking. Amended Contention C fails to satisfy the admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)28 for essentially the same reasons as the original version. 27 SLOMFP Motion at 3-4 (internal citations and footnote omitted). 28 Insofar as relevant, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) requires that, for each proffered contention, a petition must: (i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised . . . ; (ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention 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 which support the requestor's/petitioner's position . . . ; (vi) . . . [P]rovide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application . . . . First, insofar as "Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFP's original Contention C,"29 as SLOMFP itself recognizes, it suffers from identical deficiencies, which are addressed in the Board's Memorandum and Order of August 6, 2015.30  Second, insofar as Amended Contention C sets forth new allegations, it suffers from similar deficiencies. It is not enough to suggest a preferred method for performing a SAMA analysis. SLOMFP must come forward with a plausible demonstration that PG&E's existing analysis is unreasonable. SLOMFP fails to allege that considering ground displacement, ground velocity or shaking duration would materially change any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of particular SAMAs. Likewise, SLOMFP does not explain how incorporation of surface fault rupture into the SAMA analysis would make a material difference or how the analysis is unreasonable because PG&E did not consider it. On the contrary, SLOMFP fails to address PG&E studies that considered the potential for surface fault rupture and determined that "the ground at and near the [Diablo Canyon] site has not been displaced by faulting for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years."31  Nor has SLOMFP shown how consideration of surface fault rupture would make a material difference in any SAMA analysis conclusions.
Amended Contention C is not admitted.32                                                  29 Reply at 1. 30 August Order at 16-17. 31 PG&E, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report Update, at 2.5-2 & 2.5-67 (Rev. 21 Sept. 2013) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A461). 32 PG&E and the NRC Staff also contend that Amended Contention C is not timely. PG&E Answer to SLOMFP's Motion at 10-12; NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFP's Motion at 14. Although submitted within 30 days of PG&E's updated SAMA analysis, consistent with the definition of "timely" in the Second Revised Scheduling Order issued on March 26, 2014, PG&E and the Staff nonetheless assert that the new arguments in Amended Contention C could have and should have been asserted earlier. Specifically, SLOMFP's claims concerning PG&E's alleged failure to consider additional measures of ground motion are not based on information that differed materially from information that was available before PG&E's most recent SAMA update. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Because the Board concludes that Amended    B. Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1  Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205, PG&E moves for summary disposition on Contention EC-1. Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission alleging PG&E failed to address the Shoreline Fault in the SAMA analysis submitted as part of the initial renewal application for Diablo Canyon. Quite apart from the adequacy of PG&E's treatment of the Shoreline Fault in its updated SAMA analysis (discussed above), it is undisputed that PG&E's analysis no longer omits the Shoreline Fault. PG&E therefore asserts that Contention EC-1 is now moot. The NRC Staff agrees.33  In its decision concerning PG&E's appeal of the Board's initial contention admissibility ruling, it appears the Commission anticipated this very situation, and would agree as well:  "If SLOMFP intends to challenge the adequacy of any information that PG&E provides in a revision or supplement to its license renewal application regarding the Shoreline Fault, it must submit a new or amended contention."34  Plainly, Contention EC-1, as originally submitted, is now moot. SLOMFP does not argue otherwise. Rather, it opposes summary disposition on Contention EC-1 solely on the ground that, as SLOMFP interprets the Second Revised Scheduling Order, PG&E's motion is allegedly premature. As SLOMFP would have it, the Board should defer dismissing EC-1 until after the Staff issues a draft supplemental environmental impact statement-presently expected in August 2016.35  Despite the absence of any viable contention, SLOMFP would have the Board hold open this proceeding for nearly another year, at a minimum.                                                  Contention C is not admissible because of its failure to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), we need not rule on its timeliness. 33 NRC Staff Answer to PG&E's Motion at 4-5. 34 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92. 35 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Response to Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention EC-1 (Sept. 14, 2015) at 2 n.1, 3-4.      Such a construction of our scheduling orders is inconsistent with their purpose and contrary to the Commission's direction that a Licensing Board's "jurisdiction terminates when there are no longer any contested matters pending before it."36  As stated at the outset of our Initial Scheduling Order, the purpose of scheduling orders is to ensure proper case management, with the objective of "[e]xpediting the disposition of the proceeding; [e]stablishing early and continuing control so that the proceeding will not be protracted because of lack of management" and "[d]iscouraging wasteful prehearing activities."37  The purpose of scheduling orders is not to vest in any party a right to invoke their provisions to achieve the opposite of the Board's intended objectives. Rather, unless a schedule is so onerous or unfair that it deprives a party of procedural due process, "scheduling is a matter of Licensing Board discretion."38  A Licensing Board may modify or waive the provisions of its scheduling orders as it deems appropriate in the interest of sound case management.39  The exercise of such discretion is especially appropriate here. SLOMFP's suggestion that this adjudication should continue, while it is clear that no genuinely contested matter remains pending before the Board, runs directly counter to the Commission's direction as to how its Licensing Boards should manage their cases.                                                    36 DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-15-10, 81 NRC 535, 564 n.46 (2015). 37 Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling Order) (Sept. 15, 2010) at 1 (unpublished) (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(c)). 38 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64, 95 (1986).
39 See S. Cal. Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-212, 7 AEC 986, 991 (1974) ("Of necessity, licensing boards must be vested with considerable latitude in determining the course of the proceedings which they are called upon to conduct. . . . We will enter that arena only to the extent necessary to insure that no party has been denied a fair opportunity to advance its cause."). Indeed, had PG&E not moved for summary disposition in these circumstances, in all likelihood the Board itself would have issued an order to show cause why Contention EC-1 should not now be dismissed as moot. SLOMFP requested and was allowed some 45 days in which to respond to PG&E's motion for summary disposition.40  SLOMFP has not been prejudiced in any way by having to address the mootness of Contention EC-1 in responding to PG&E's motion, rather than in responding to the Board's order to show cause. PG&E's motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted. 


40 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (July 31, 2015); Order Granting Extension of Time at 2. III.ORDERFor the reasons stated: 1.SLOMFP's motion to file Amended Contention C is denied.2.PG&E's motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.3.In the absence of any admitted or proffered contention, this proceeding is terminated.In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b), any petition for review of this Memorandum and Order must be filed within twenty-five (25) days after it is served. It is so ORDERED.         THE ATOMIC SAFETY  AND LICENSING BOARD ___________________________ Paul S. Ryerson, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ___________________________ Dr. Gary S. Arnold ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ___________________________ Nicholas G. Trikouros ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 21, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  In the Matter of )  
Contention EC-1.3 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the first motion, grant the second, andin the absence of any contentionterminate the proceeding.
)
I. BACKGROUND On January 21, 2010, the NRC published a Federal Register notice of an opportunity for a hearing on PG&Es license renewal application.4 SLOMFP filed a timely petition to intervene, which the Board granted.5 After review by the Commission, one admitted contention Contention EC-1remained.6 Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission that alleges PG&E failed, in the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis required by 10 C.F.R.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR  )    (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )   Units 1 and 2) )      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding) (LBP-15-29) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC  20555-0001
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), to discuss a recently-discovered fault (the Shoreline Fault) located near the plant.7 Subsequently, both SLOMFP and another petitioner moved to admit additional contentions,8 which the Board rejected.9 Of especial relevance is SLOMFPs motion, filed April 15, 2015, to admit Contention C. Contention C alleged thatalthough PG&Es SAMA 3 Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (July 31, 2015).
4 75 Fed. Reg. 3493, 3493 (Jan. 21, 2010).
5 LBP-10-15, 72 NRC at 345.
6 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 437, 444, 452, 458.
7 Id. at 444; see also Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Mar. 22, 2010) at 8-20.
8 Friends of the Earths Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Environmental Report for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 6, 2015); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr.
15, 2015) (Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D).
9 LBP-15-06, 81 NRC at 315; August Order at 1.


Paul S. Ryerson, Chair Administrative Judge E-mail: paul.ryerson@nrc.gov  Nicholas G. Trikouros Administrative Judge E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov  Gary S. Arnold Administrative Judge E-mail:  gary.arnold@nrc.gov      Alana Wase, Law Clerk E-mail:  alana.wase@nrc.gov  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001
analysis now addressed the Shoreline Faultits analysis still failed to adequately account for seismic hazards at the facility.10 On July 31, 2015, shortly before the Board ruled the original Contention C inadmissible,11 SLOMFP moved to amend Contention C in response to PG&Es further updating its SAMA analysis.12 On the same day, PG&E moved for summary disposition on the only admitted contention (Contention EC-1).
On August 13, 2015, the NRC Staff submitted a response supporting PG&Es summary disposition motion.13 On August 25, 2015, PG&E and the Staff submitted oppositions to SLOMFPs motion to amend Contention C.14 With the parties consent, the Board allowed SLOMFP until September 14, 2015 to respond to PG&Es summary disposition motion and to reply in support of its motion to amend.15 10 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-15.
11 August Order at 16-17.
12 SLOMFP Motion at 1-2.
13 NRC Staff Answer to Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (Aug. 13, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to PG&Es Motion).
14 Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Answer Opposing Proposed Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (PG&E Answer to SLOMFPs Motion); NRC Staff Answer to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFPs Motion).
15 Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 3, 2015)
(unpublished) (Order Granting Extension of Time); Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 25, 2015) (unpublished).


Edward L. Williamson, Esq. E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov  Beth Mizuno, Esq. E-mail:  beth.mizuno@nrc.gov  Catherine Kanatas, Esq. E-mail:  catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov  Joseph Lindell, Esq. E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov  Daniel Straus, Esq. E-mail:  daniel.strauss@nrc.gov  John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail:  john.tibbetts@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center E-mail: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC  20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC  20555-0001 Hearing Docket E-mail:  hearingdocket@nrc.gov Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding) (LBP-15-29) 2  Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Winston & Strawn, LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA  94111-5802 David A. Repka, Esq.
II. ANALYSIS A. Motion to File Amended Contention C As SLOMFP acknowledges, Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFPs original Contention C,16 which the Board previously rejected as inadmissible.17 As first proffered, Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis) stated:
E-mail: drepka@winston.com Tyson Smith, Esq. E-mail: trsmith@winston.com Carlos Sisco, Senior Paralegal E-mail: csisco@winston.com San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 1123 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA  93420 Jill ZamEk, Esq. jzk@charter.net Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC  20036 Diane Curran, Esq.
PG&Es SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&Es Amended ER) is inadequate to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&Es evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. As a result, PG&Es evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures.
dcurran@harmoncurran.com   
While PG&E claims that the results and insights of its 2014 interim probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) (labeled DCO3) are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis, by PG&Es own admission, DCO3 is only an interim PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.
Nor does PG&Es promise to update the DCO3 with the results of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&Es SAMA Analysis, because PG&Es 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&Es seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its results in a revised SAMA Analysis would not be sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.18 As more fully explained in our August 6, 2015 Memorandum and Order, the Board determined that, for three separate and independent reasons, Contention C failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).
16 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Reply to Oppositions to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation) (Sept. 14, 2015) at 1 (Reply).
17 August Order at 16-17.
18 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-3 (internal citations omitted).


Ayres Law Group, LLP 1707 L Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Ayres, Esq. E-mail:  ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com John Bernetich, Esq. E-mail:  bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com Jessica L. Olson, Esq. E-mail:  olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com   
First, insofar as Contention C alleged deficiencies per se in the seismic reevaluation that PG&E submitted in a Part 50 process designed to consider the adequacy of the Diablo Canyon plants current licensing basis, the Board ruled that a Part 54 license renewal proceeding is not a proper forum for litigation of section 50.54(f) licensing basis issues with no connection to any SAMA.19 Second, SLOMFP failed to make a plausible showing that PG&Es approach to SAMAs was not reasonable.20 As the Commission has recognized, [i]t will always be possible to envision and propose some alternate approach, some additional detail to include, some refinement.21 But that, without more, does not demonstrate a genuine dispute suitable for an evidentiary hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The proper question, the Commission has stated, is not whether there are plausible alternative choices for use in the analysis, but whether the analysis that was done is reasonable under NEPA.22 Unless a petitioner sets forth a supported contention pointing to an apparent error or deficiency that may have significantly skewed the environmental conclusions, there is no genuine material dispute for hearing.23 19 August Order at 16.
20 Id.
21 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-15, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2012).
22 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-08, 75 NRC 393, 406 (2012) (citing NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC 301, 323 (2012)). Although a SAMA analysis considers safety issues, it is in actuality an environmental review that must be judged under NEPAs rule of reason and not under the safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. See Pilgrim, CLI-12-15, 75 NRC at 706-07.
23 Davis-Besse, CLI-12-08, 75 NRC at 407.


[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser      ] Office of the Secretary of the Commission  Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of October, 2015 LBP 15-29  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD  Before Administrative Judges:  Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman Dr. Gary S. Arnold  Nicholas G. Trikouros  In the Matter of  PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY  (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Third, although the purpose of SAMA analyses is to identify safety enhancements that would be cost beneficial to adopt,24 Contention C never addressed the potential impact of any particular seismic model change on the cost-benefit evaluations of the SAMAs that PG&E considered.25 As the Commission has emphasized, the relevant issue is whether any additional SAMA should have been identified as potentially cost beneficial, not whether further analysis may refine the details in the SAMA NEPA analysis.26 Amended Contention C states:
Docket No. 50-275-LR Docket No. 50-323-LR  ASLBP No. 10-900-01-LR-BD01  October 21, 2015  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
PG&Es SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&Es Amended Environmental Report), as supplemented by the SHU-SAMA Evaluation, is inadequate to satisfy NEPA or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&Es evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. In addition, PG&E fails to take into account all relevant earthquake characteristics that could affect the SAMA analysis, even though PG&Es seismic hazards analysis provides information about these characteristics. As a result of these deficiencies, PG&Es evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures.
This proceeding concerns an application by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) to renew its operating licenses for two nuclear power reactors at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant located near San Luis Obispo, California.1    Before the Board are motions (1) by intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) to file an Amended Contention C,2 and (2) by PG&E for summary disposition on                                                  1 The background of this proceeding is set forth in prior decisions of the Board and of the Commission. See, e.g., LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 273-75 (2010); CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429-31 (2011); LBP-15-6, 81 NRC 314, 316 (2015); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Motions to File New Contentions) (Aug. 6, 2015) at 2-4 (unpublished) (August Order).
While PG&E claims that the results and insights of its 2014 interim probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) (labeled DCO3) are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis[,] by PG&Es own admission, DCO3 is only an interim PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.
2 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation) (July 31, 2015) (SLOMFP Motion). Contention EC-1.3  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the first motion, grant the second, and-in the absence of any contention-terminate the proceeding. I. BACKGROUND  On January 21, 2010, the NRC published a Federal Register notice of an opportunity for a hearing on PG&E's license renewal application.4  SLOMFP filed a timely petition to intervene, which the Board granted.5  After review by the Commission, one admitted contention-Contention EC-1-remained.6  Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission that alleges PG&E failed, in the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis required by 10 C.F.R.      § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), to discuss a recently-discovered fault (the Shoreline Fault) located near the plant.7    Subsequently, both SLOMFP and another petitioner moved to admit additional contentions,8 which the Board rejected.9  Of especial relevance is SLOMFP's motion, filed    April 15, 2015, to admit Contention C. Contention C alleged that-although PG&E's SAMA                                                  3 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (July 31, 2015). 4 75 Fed. Reg. 3493, 3493 (Jan. 21, 2010). 5 LBP-10-15, 72 NRC at 345. 6 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 437, 444, 452, 458. 7 Id. at 444; see also Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Mar. 22, 2010) at 8-20.
Nor does PG&Es recent update of the DCO3 with the results of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&Es SAMA Analysis, because PG&Es 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&Es seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its results in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is not sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.
8 Friends of the Earth's Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Environmental Report for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 6, 2015); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 15, 2015) (Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D).
24 See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 290-91 (2010), pet. for reconsideration denied, CLI 15, 71 NRC 479 (2010).
9 LBP-15-06, 81 NRC at 315; August Order at 1.      analysis now addressed the Shoreline Fault-its analysis still failed to adequately account for seismic hazards at the facility.10  On July 31, 2015, shortly before the Board ruled the original Contention C inadmissible,11 SLOMFP moved to amend Contention C in response to PG&E's further updating its SAMA analysis.12  On the same day, PG&E moved for summary disposition on the only admitted contention (Contention EC-1). On August 13, 2015, the NRC Staff submitted a response supporting PG&E's summary disposition motion.13  On August 25, 2015, PG&E and the Staff submitted oppositions to SLOMFP's motion to amend Contention C.14  With the parties' consent, the Board allowed SLOMFP until September 14, 2015 to respond to PG&E's summary disposition motion and to reply in support of its motion to amend.15                                                        10 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-15. 11 August Order at 16-17. 12 SLOMFP Motion at 1-2. 13 NRC Staff Answer to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (Aug. 13, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to PG&E's Motion). 14 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Answer Opposing Proposed Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (PG&E Answer to SLOMFP's Motion); NRC Staff Answer to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Motion to File Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFP's Motion).
25 See August Order at 17.
15 Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 3, 2015) (unpublished) (Order Granting Extension of Time); Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 25, 2015) (unpublished). II. ANALYSIS A. Motion to File Amended Contention C  As SLOMFP acknowledges, "Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFP's original Contention C,"16 which the Board previously rejected as inadmissible.17  As first proffered, Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis) stated: PG&E's SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&E's Amended ER) is inadequate to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&E's evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. As a result, PG&E's evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures. While PG&E claims that the "results and insights" of its 2014 "interim" probabilistic risk analysis ("PRA") (labeled "DCO3") are "reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis," by PG&E's own admission, DCO3 is only an "interim" PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis. Nor does PG&E's promise to "update" the DCO3 with the "results" of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&E's SAMA Analysis, because PG&E's 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&E's seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its "results" in a revised SAMA Analysis would not be sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.18  As more fully explained in our August 6, 2015 Memorandum and Order, the Board determined that, for three separate and independent reasons, Contention C failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).                                                    16 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Reply to Oppositions to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation) (Sept. 14, 2015) at 1 (Reply). 17 August Order at 16-17. 18 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-3 (internal citations omitted). First, insofar as Contention C alleged deficiencies per se in the seismic reevaluation that PG&E submitted in a Part 50 process designed to consider the adequacy of the Diablo Canyon plant's current licensing basis, the Board ruled that a Part 54 license renewal proceeding is not a proper forum for litigation of section 50.54(f) licensing basis issues with no connection to any SAMA.19  Second, SLOMFP failed to make a plausible showing that PG&E's approach to SAMAs was not reasonable.20  As the Commission has recognized, "[i]t will always be possible to envision and propose some alternate approach, some additional detail to include, some refinement."21  But that, without more, does not demonstrate a genuine dispute suitable for an evidentiary hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The proper question, the Commission has stated, "is not whether there are plausible alternative choices for use in the analysis, but whether the analysis that was done is reasonable under NEPA."22  "Unless a petitioner sets forth a supported contention pointing to an apparent error or deficiency that may have significantly skewed the environmental conclusions, there is no genuine material dispute for hearing."23                                                    19 August Order at 16. 20 Id. 21 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-15, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2012). 22 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-08, 75 NRC 393, 406 (2012) (citing NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC 301, 323 (2012)). Although a SAMA analysis considers safety issues, it is in actuality an environmental review that must be judged under NEPA's "rule of reason" and not under the safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. See Pilgrim, CLI-12-15, 75 NRC at 706-07.
26 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-11, 69 NRC 529, 533 (2009).
23 Davis-Besse, CLI-12-08, 75 NRC at 407.      Third, although the purpose of SAMA analyses is to identify safety enhancements that would be cost beneficial to adopt,24 Contention C never addressed the potential impact of any particular seismic model change on the cost-benefit evaluations of the SAMAs that PG&E considered.25 As the Commission has emphasized, the relevant issue "is whether any additional SAMA should have been identified as potentially cost beneficial, not whether further analysis may refine the details in the SAMA NEPA analysis."26     Amended Contention C states: PG&E's SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&E's Amended Environmental Report), as supplemented by the SHU-SAMA Evaluation, is inadequate to satisfy NEPA or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&E's evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. In addition, PG&E fails to take into account all relevant earthquake characteristics that could affect the SAMA analysis, even though PG&E's seismic hazards analysis provides information about these characteristics. As a result of these deficiencies, PG&E's evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures. While PG&E claims that the "results and insights" of its 2014 "interim" probabilistic risk analysis ("PRA") (labeled "DCO3") are "reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis[,]" by PG&E's own admission, DCO3 is only an "interim" PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.
Nor does PG&E's recent "update" of the DCO3 with the "results" of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&E's SAMA Analysis, because PG&E's 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&E's seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its "results" in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is not sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.                                                 24 See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 290-91 (2010), pet. for reconsideration denied, CLI-10-15, 71 NRC 479 (2010).
25 See August Order at 17. 26 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-11, 69 NRC 529, 533 (2009).
Finally, the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is unreasonably restricted to the consideration of the effects of spectral acceleration on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The only information from the SSC or SHS Report that is presented in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is a table showing seismic initiating event frequencies. The SHU-SAMA Evaluation fails to consider other measures of ground motion that could cause reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts on Diablo Canyon that are more extreme than or different from the impacts of spectral acceleration. These factors include surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.27  Beyond recognizing that PG&E most recently updated its SAMA analysis on July 1, 2015, Amended Contention C differs from the original contention in one significant way. SLOMFP now alleges that PG&E unreasonably restricted its analysis to considering the effects of spectral acceleration. It contends that PG&E should also have analyzed other measures of ground motion, including surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking. Amended Contention C fails to satisfy the admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)28 for essentially the same reasons as the original version. 27 SLOMFP Motion at 3-4 (internal citations and footnote omitted). 28 Insofar as relevant, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) requires that, for each proffered contention, a petition must: (i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised . . . ; (ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention 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 which support the requestor's/petitioner's position . . . ; (vi) . . . [P]rovide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application . . . . First, insofar as "Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFP's original Contention C,"29 as SLOMFP itself recognizes, it suffers from identical deficiencies, which are addressed in the Board's Memorandum and Order of August 6, 2015.30  Second, insofar as Amended Contention C sets forth new allegations, it suffers from similar deficiencies. It is not enough to suggest a preferred method for performing a SAMA analysis. SLOMFP must come forward with a plausible demonstration that PG&E's existing analysis is unreasonable. SLOMFP fails to allege that considering ground displacement, ground velocity or shaking duration would materially change any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of particular SAMAs. Likewise, SLOMFP does not explain how incorporation of surface fault rupture into the SAMA analysis would make a material difference or how the analysis is unreasonable because PG&E did not consider it. On the contrary, SLOMFP fails to address PG&E studies that considered the potential for surface fault rupture and determined that "the ground at and near the [Diablo Canyon] site has not been displaced by faulting for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years."31  Nor has SLOMFP shown how consideration of surface fault rupture would make a material difference in any SAMA analysis conclusions.
Amended Contention C is not admitted.32                                                  29 Reply at 1. 30 August Order at 16-17. 31 PG&E, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report Update, at 2.5-2 & 2.5-67 (Rev. 21 Sept. 2013) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A461). 32 PG&E and the NRC Staff also contend that Amended Contention C is not timely. PG&E Answer to SLOMFP's Motion at 10-12; NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFP's Motion at 14. Although submitted within 30 days of PG&E's updated SAMA analysis, consistent with the definition of "timely" in the Second Revised Scheduling Order issued on March 26, 2014, PG&E and the Staff nonetheless assert that the new arguments in Amended Contention C could have and should have been asserted earlier. Specifically, SLOMFP's claims concerning PG&E's alleged failure to consider additional measures of ground motion are not based on information that differed materially from information that was available before PG&E's most recent SAMA update. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Because the Board concludes that Amended    B. Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1  Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205, PG&E moves for summary disposition on Contention EC-1. Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission alleging PG&E failed to address the Shoreline Fault in the SAMA analysis submitted as part of the initial renewal application for Diablo Canyon. Quite apart from the adequacy of PG&E's treatment of the Shoreline Fault in its updated SAMA analysis (discussed above), it is undisputed that PG&E's analysis no longer omits the Shoreline Fault. PG&E therefore asserts that Contention EC-1 is now moot. The NRC Staff agrees.33  In its decision concerning PG&E's appeal of the Board's initial contention admissibility ruling, it appears the Commission anticipated this very situation, and would agree as well:  "If SLOMFP intends to challenge the adequacy of any information that PG&E provides in a revision or supplement to its license renewal application regarding the Shoreline Fault, it must submit a new or amended contention."34  Plainly, Contention EC-1, as originally submitted, is now moot. SLOMFP does not argue otherwise. Rather, it opposes summary disposition on Contention EC-1 solely on the ground that, as SLOMFP interprets the Second Revised Scheduling Order, PG&E's motion is allegedly premature. As SLOMFP would have it, the Board should defer dismissing EC-1 until after the Staff issues a draft supplemental environmental impact statement-presently expected in August 2016.35  Despite the absence of any viable contention, SLOMFP would have the Board hold open this proceeding for nearly another year, at a minimum.                                                  Contention C is not admissible because of its failure to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), we need not rule on its timeliness. 33 NRC Staff Answer to PG&E's Motion at 4-5. 34 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92. 35 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Response to Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention EC-1 (Sept. 14, 2015) at 2 n.1, 3-4.      Such a construction of our scheduling orders is inconsistent with their purpose and contrary to the Commission's direction that a Licensing Board's "jurisdiction terminates when there are no longer any contested matters pending before it."36  As stated at the outset of our Initial Scheduling Order, the purpose of scheduling orders is to ensure proper case management, with the objective of "[e]xpediting the disposition of the proceeding; [e]stablishing early and continuing control so that the proceeding will not be protracted because of lack of management" and "[d]iscouraging wasteful prehearing activities."37  The purpose of scheduling orders is not to vest in any party a right to invoke their provisions to achieve the opposite of the Board's intended objectives. Rather, unless a schedule is so onerous or unfair that it deprives a party of procedural due process, "scheduling is a matter of Licensing Board discretion."38  A Licensing Board may modify or waive the provisions of its scheduling orders as it deems appropriate in the interest of sound case management.39  The exercise of such discretion is especially appropriate here. SLOMFP's suggestion that this adjudication should continue, while it is clear that no genuinely contested matter remains pending before the Board, runs directly counter to the Commission's direction as to how its Licensing Boards should manage their cases.                                                    36 DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-15-10, 81 NRC 535, 564 n.46 (2015). 37 Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling Order) (Sept. 15, 2010) at 1 (unpublished) (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(c)). 38 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64, 95 (1986).
39 See S. Cal. Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-212, 7 AEC 986, 991 (1974) ("Of necessity, licensing boards must be vested with considerable latitude in determining the course of the proceedings which they are called upon to conduct. . . . We will enter that arena only to the extent necessary to insure that no party has been denied a fair opportunity to advance its cause."). Indeed, had PG&E not moved for summary disposition in these circumstances, in all likelihood the Board itself would have issued an order to show cause why Contention EC-1 should not now be dismissed as moot. SLOMFP requested and was allowed some 45 days in which to respond to PG&E's motion for summary disposition.40  SLOMFP has not been prejudiced in any way by having to address the mootness of Contention EC-1 in responding to PG&E's motion, rather than in responding to the Board's order to show cause. PG&E's motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted. 


40 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (July 31, 2015); Order Granting Extension of Time at 2. III.ORDERFor the reasons stated: 1.SLOMFP's motion to file Amended Contention C is denied.2.PG&E's motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.3.In the absence of any admitted or proffered contention, this proceeding is terminated.In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b), any petition for review of this Memorandum and Order must be filed within twenty-five (25) days after it is served. It is so ORDERED.         THE ATOMIC SAFETY  AND LICENSING BOARD ___________________________ Paul S. Ryerson, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ___________________________ Dr. Gary S. Arnold ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ___________________________ Nicholas G. Trikouros ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 21, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  In the Matter of )  
Finally, the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is unreasonably restricted to the consideration of the effects of spectral acceleration on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The only information from the SSC or SHS Report that is presented in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is a table showing seismic initiating event frequencies. The SHU-SAMA Evaluation fails to consider other measures of ground motion that could cause reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts on Diablo Canyon that are more extreme than or different from the impacts of spectral acceleration. These factors include surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.27 Beyond recognizing that PG&E most recently updated its SAMA analysis on July 1, 2015, Amended Contention C differs from the original contention in one significant way.
)
SLOMFP now alleges that PG&E unreasonably restricted its analysis to considering the effects of spectral acceleration. It contends that PG&E should also have analyzed other measures of ground motion, including surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR  )    (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )    Units 1 and 2) )     CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding) (LBP-15-29) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC  20555-0001
Amended Contention C fails to satisfy the admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)28 for essentially the same reasons as the original version.
27 SLOMFP Motion at 3-4 (internal citations and footnote omitted).
28 Insofar as relevant, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) requires that, for each proffered contention, a petition must:
(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised . . . ; (ii)
Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv)
Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention 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 which support the requestors/petitioners position . . . ; (vi) . . . [P]rovide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application . . . .


Paul S. Ryerson, Chair Administrative Judge E-mail: paul.ryerson@nrc.gov  Nicholas G. Trikouros Administrative Judge E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov  Gary S. Arnold Administrative Judge E-mail:  gary.arnold@nrc.gov      Alana Wase, Law Clerk E-mail:  alana.wase@nrc.gov  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001
First, insofar as Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFPs original Contention C,29 as SLOMFP itself recognizes, it suffers from identical deficiencies, which are addressed in the Boards Memorandum and Order of August 6, 2015.30 Second, insofar as Amended Contention C sets forth new allegations, it suffers from similar deficiencies. It is not enough to suggest a preferred method for performing a SAMA analysis. SLOMFP must come forward with a plausible demonstration that PG&Es existing analysis is unreasonable. SLOMFP fails to allege that considering ground displacement, ground velocity or shaking duration would materially change any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of particular SAMAs.
Likewise, SLOMFP does not explain how incorporation of surface fault rupture into the SAMA analysis would make a material difference or how the analysis is unreasonable because PG&E did not consider it. On the contrary, SLOMFP fails to address PG&E studies that considered the potential for surface fault rupture and determined that the ground at and near the [Diablo Canyon] site has not been displaced by faulting for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years.31 Nor has SLOMFP shown how consideration of surface fault rupture would make a material difference in any SAMA analysis conclusions.
Amended Contention C is not admitted.32 29 Reply at 1.
30 August Order at 16-17.
31 PG&E, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report Update, at 2.5-2 & 2.5-67 (Rev. 21 Sept. 2013) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A461).
32 PG&E and the NRC Staff also contend that Amended Contention C is not timely. PG&E Answer to SLOMFPs Motion at 10-12; NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFPs Motion at 14. Although submitted within 30 days of PG&Es updated SAMA analysis, consistent with the definition of timely in the Second Revised Scheduling Order issued on March 26, 2014, PG&E and the Staff nonetheless assert that the new arguments in Amended Contention C could have and should have been asserted earlier. Specifically, SLOMFPs claims concerning PG&Es alleged failure to consider additional measures of ground motion are not based on information that differed materially from information that was available before PG&Es most recent SAMA update. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Because the Board concludes that Amended


Edward L. Williamson, Esq. E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov  Beth Mizuno, Esq. E-mail:  beth.mizuno@nrc.gov  Catherine Kanatas, Esq. E-mail:  catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov  Joseph Lindell, Esq. E-mail:  joseph.lindell@nrc.gov  Daniel Straus, Esq. E-mail:  daniel.strauss@nrc.gov  John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail:  john.tibbetts@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center E-mail: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC  20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC  20555-0001 Hearing Docket E-mail:  hearingdocket@nrc.gov Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding) (LBP-15-29) 2  Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Winston & Strawn, LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA  94111-5802 David A. Repka, Esq.
B. Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205, PG&E moves for summary disposition on Contention EC-1. Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission alleging PG&E failed to address the Shoreline Fault in the SAMA analysis submitted as part of the initial renewal application for Diablo Canyon. Quite apart from the adequacy of PG&Es treatment of the Shoreline Fault in its updated SAMA analysis (discussed above), it is undisputed that PG&Es analysis no longer omits the Shoreline Fault. PG&E therefore asserts that Contention EC-1 is now moot.
E-mail: drepka@winston.com Tyson Smith, Esq. E-mail: trsmith@winston.com Carlos Sisco, Senior Paralegal E-mail: csisco@winston.com San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 1123 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA  93420 Jill ZamEk, Esq. jzk@charter.net Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC  20036 Diane Curran, Esq.
The NRC Staff agrees.33 In its decision concerning PG&Es appeal of the Boards initial contention admissibility ruling, it appears the Commission anticipated this very situation, and would agree as well: If SLOMFP intends to challenge the adequacy of any information that PG&E provides in a revision or supplement to its license renewal application regarding the Shoreline Fault, it must submit a new or amended contention.34 Plainly, Contention EC-1, as originally submitted, is now moot.
dcurran@harmoncurran.com   
SLOMFP does not argue otherwise. Rather, it opposes summary disposition on Contention EC-1 solely on the ground that, as SLOMFP interprets the Second Revised Scheduling Order, PG&Es motion is allegedly premature. As SLOMFP would have it, the Board should defer dismissing EC-1 until after the Staff issues a draft supplemental environmental impact statementpresently expected in August 2016.35 Despite the absence of any viable contention, SLOMFP would have the Board hold open this proceeding for nearly another year, at a minimum.
Contention C is not admissible because of its failure to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), we need not rule on its timeliness.
33 NRC Staff Answer to PG&Es Motion at 4-5.
34 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92.
35 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Response to Pacific Gas & Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention EC-1 (Sept. 14, 2015) at 2 n.1, 3-4.


Ayres Law Group, LLP 1707 L Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Ayres, Esq. E-mail:  ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com John Bernetich, Esq. E-mail:  bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com Jessica L. Olson, Esq. E-mail:  olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com   
Such a construction of our scheduling orders is inconsistent with their purpose and contrary to the Commissions direction that a Licensing Boards jurisdiction terminates when there are no longer any contested matters pending before it.36 As stated at the outset of our Initial Scheduling Order, the purpose of scheduling orders is to ensure proper case management, with the objective of [e]xpediting the disposition of the proceeding; [e]stablishing early and continuing control so that the proceeding will not be protracted because of lack of management and [d]iscouraging wasteful prehearing activities.37 The purpose of scheduling orders is not to vest in any party a right to invoke their provisions to achieve the opposite of the Boards intended objectives. Rather, unless a schedule is so onerous or unfair that it deprives a party of procedural due process, scheduling is a matter of Licensing Board discretion.38 A Licensing Board may modify or waive the provisions of its scheduling orders as it deems appropriate in the interest of sound case management.39 The exercise of such discretion is especially appropriate here. SLOMFPs suggestion that this adjudication should continue, while it is clear that no genuinely contested matter remains pending before the Board, runs directly counter to the Commissions direction as to how its Licensing Boards should manage their cases.
36 DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-15-10, 81 NRC 535, 564 n.46 (2015).
37 Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling Order) (Sept. 15, 2010) at 1 (unpublished) (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(c)).
38 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64, 95 (1986).
39 See S. Cal. Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-212, 7 AEC 986, 991 (1974) (Of necessity, licensing boards must be vested with considerable latitude in determining the course of the proceedings which they are called upon to conduct. . . . We will enter that arena only to the extent necessary to insure that no party has been denied a fair opportunity to advance its cause.).


[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser     ] Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of October, 2015}}
Indeed, had PG&E not moved for summary disposition in these circumstances, in all likelihood the Board itself would have issued an order to show cause why Contention EC-1 should not now be dismissed as moot. SLOMFP requested and was allowed some 45 days in which to respond to PG&Es motion for summary disposition.40 SLOMFP has not been prejudiced in any way by having to address the mootness of Contention EC-1 in responding to PG&Es motion, rather than in responding to the Boards order to show cause.
PG&Es motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.
40 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (July 31, 2015); Order Granting Extension of Time at 2.
 
III. ORDER For the reasons stated:
: 1. SLOMFPs motion to file Amended Contention C is denied.
: 2. PG&Es motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.
: 3. In the absence of any admitted or proffered contention, this proceeding is terminated.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b), any petition for review of this Memorandum and Order must be filed within twenty-five (25) days after it is served.
It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                        /RA/
Paul S. Ryerson, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
                                                        /RA/
Dr. Gary S. Arnold ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
                                                          /RA/
Nicholas G. Trikouros ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 21, 2015
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                )
                                                )
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY                  )  Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR
                                                )
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,              )
Units 1 and 2)                                )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
(LBP-15-29) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission            U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel        Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23                              Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001                      Washington, DC 20555-0001 Paul S. Ryerson, Chair                        Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Administrative Judge                          E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov E-mail: paul.ryerson@nrc.gov                  Beth Mizuno, Esq.
E-mail: beth.mizuno@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikouros                          Catherine Kanatas, Esq.
Administrative Judge                          E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov            Joseph Lindell, Esq.
E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Gary S. Arnold                                Daniel Straus, Esq.
Administrative Judge                          E-mail: daniel.strauss@nrc.gov E-mail: gary.arnold@nrc.gov                    John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail: john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Alana Wase, Law Clerk E-mail: alana.wase@nrc.gov                    OGC Mail Center E-mail: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission            U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication    Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1                              Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001                      Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center                              Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov                      E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
 
2 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding) (LBP-15-29)
Counsel for Pacific Gas and                San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Electric Company                          1123 Flora Road Winston & Strawn, LLP                      Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 101 California Street                      Jill ZamEk, Esq.
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802                jzk@charter.net David A. Repka, Esq.
E-mail: drepka@winston.com Tyson Smith, Esq.                          Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers E-mail: trsmith@winston.com                  For Peace Carlos Sisco, Senior Paralegal              Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg E-mail: csisco@winston.com                  1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Diane Curran, Esq.
dcurran@harmoncurran.com Ayres Law Group, LLP 1707 L Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Ayres, Esq.
E-mail: ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com John Bernetich, Esq.
E-mail: bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com Jessica L. Olson, Esq.
E-mail: olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com
[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser    ]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of October, 2015
 
LBP 15-29 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman Dr. Gary S. Arnold Nicholas G. Trikouros In the Matter of                                    Docket No. 50-275-LR Docket No. 50-323-LR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 10-900-01-LR-BD01 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)                                              October 21, 2015 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
This proceeding concerns an application by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) to renew its operating licenses for two nuclear power reactors at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant located near San Luis Obispo, California.1 Before the Board are motions (1) by intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) to file an Amended Contention C,2 and (2) by PG&E for summary disposition on 1 The background of this proceeding is set forth in prior decisions of the Board and of the Commission. See, e.g., LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 273-75 (2010); CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429-31 (2011); LBP-15-6, 81 NRC 314, 316 (2015); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Motions to File New Contentions) (Aug. 6, 2015) at 2-4 (unpublished) (August Order).
2 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation)
(July 31, 2015) (SLOMFP Motion).
 
Contention EC-1.3 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the first motion, grant the second, andin the absence of any contentionterminate the proceeding.
I. BACKGROUND On January 21, 2010, the NRC published a Federal Register notice of an opportunity for a hearing on PG&Es license renewal application.4 SLOMFP filed a timely petition to intervene, which the Board granted.5 After review by the Commission, one admitted contention Contention EC-1remained.6 Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission that alleges PG&E failed, in the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis required by 10 C.F.R.
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), to discuss a recently-discovered fault (the Shoreline Fault) located near the plant.7 Subsequently, both SLOMFP and another petitioner moved to admit additional contentions,8 which the Board rejected.9 Of especial relevance is SLOMFPs motion, filed April 15, 2015, to admit Contention C. Contention C alleged thatalthough PG&Es SAMA 3 Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (July 31, 2015).
4 75 Fed. Reg. 3493, 3493 (Jan. 21, 2010).
5 LBP-10-15, 72 NRC at 345.
6 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 437, 444, 452, 458.
7 Id. at 444; see also Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Mar. 22, 2010) at 8-20.
8 Friends of the Earths Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Environmental Report for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 6, 2015); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr.
15, 2015) (Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D).
9 LBP-15-06, 81 NRC at 315; August Order at 1.
 
analysis now addressed the Shoreline Faultits analysis still failed to adequately account for seismic hazards at the facility.10 On July 31, 2015, shortly before the Board ruled the original Contention C inadmissible,11 SLOMFP moved to amend Contention C in response to PG&Es further updating its SAMA analysis.12 On the same day, PG&E moved for summary disposition on the only admitted contention (Contention EC-1).
On August 13, 2015, the NRC Staff submitted a response supporting PG&Es summary disposition motion.13 On August 25, 2015, PG&E and the Staff submitted oppositions to SLOMFPs motion to amend Contention C.14 With the parties consent, the Board allowed SLOMFP until September 14, 2015 to respond to PG&Es summary disposition motion and to reply in support of its motion to amend.15 10 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-15.
11 August Order at 16-17.
12 SLOMFP Motion at 1-2.
13 NRC Staff Answer to Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (Aug. 13, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to PG&Es Motion).
14 Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Answer Opposing Proposed Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (PG&E Answer to SLOMFPs Motion); NRC Staff Answer to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFPs Motion).
15 Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 3, 2015)
(unpublished) (Order Granting Extension of Time); Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 25, 2015) (unpublished).
 
II. ANALYSIS A. Motion to File Amended Contention C As SLOMFP acknowledges, Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFPs original Contention C,16 which the Board previously rejected as inadmissible.17 As first proffered, Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis) stated:
PG&Es SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&Es Amended ER) is inadequate to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&Es evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. As a result, PG&Es evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures.
While PG&E claims that the results and insights of its 2014 interim probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) (labeled DCO3) are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis, by PG&Es own admission, DCO3 is only an interim PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.
Nor does PG&Es promise to update the DCO3 with the results of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&Es SAMA Analysis, because PG&Es 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&Es seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its results in a revised SAMA Analysis would not be sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.18 As more fully explained in our August 6, 2015 Memorandum and Order, the Board determined that, for three separate and independent reasons, Contention C failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).
16 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Reply to Oppositions to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation) (Sept. 14, 2015) at 1 (Reply).
17 August Order at 16-17.
18 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-3 (internal citations omitted).
 
First, insofar as Contention C alleged deficiencies per se in the seismic reevaluation that PG&E submitted in a Part 50 process designed to consider the adequacy of the Diablo Canyon plants current licensing basis, the Board ruled that a Part 54 license renewal proceeding is not a proper forum for litigation of section 50.54(f) licensing basis issues with no connection to any SAMA.19 Second, SLOMFP failed to make a plausible showing that PG&Es approach to SAMAs was not reasonable.20 As the Commission has recognized, [i]t will always be possible to envision and propose some alternate approach, some additional detail to include, some refinement.21 But that, without more, does not demonstrate a genuine dispute suitable for an evidentiary hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The proper question, the Commission has stated, is not whether there are plausible alternative choices for use in the analysis, but whether the analysis that was done is reasonable under NEPA.22 Unless a petitioner sets forth a supported contention pointing to an apparent error or deficiency that may have significantly skewed the environmental conclusions, there is no genuine material dispute for hearing.23 19 August Order at 16.
20 Id.
21 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-15, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2012).
22 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-08, 75 NRC 393, 406 (2012) (citing NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC 301, 323 (2012)). Although a SAMA analysis considers safety issues, it is in actuality an environmental review that must be judged under NEPAs rule of reason and not under the safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. See Pilgrim, CLI-12-15, 75 NRC at 706-07.
23 Davis-Besse, CLI-12-08, 75 NRC at 407.
 
Third, although the purpose of SAMA analyses is to identify safety enhancements that would be cost beneficial to adopt,24 Contention C never addressed the potential impact of any particular seismic model change on the cost-benefit evaluations of the SAMAs that PG&E considered.25 As the Commission has emphasized, the relevant issue is whether any additional SAMA should have been identified as potentially cost beneficial, not whether further analysis may refine the details in the SAMA NEPA analysis.26 Amended Contention C states:
PG&Es SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&Es Amended Environmental Report), as supplemented by the SHU-SAMA Evaluation, is inadequate to satisfy NEPA or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&Es evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. In addition, PG&E fails to take into account all relevant earthquake characteristics that could affect the SAMA analysis, even though PG&Es seismic hazards analysis provides information about these characteristics. As a result of these deficiencies, PG&Es evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures.
While PG&E claims that the results and insights of its 2014 interim probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) (labeled DCO3) are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis[,] by PG&Es own admission, DCO3 is only an interim PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.
Nor does PG&Es recent update of the DCO3 with the results of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&Es SAMA Analysis, because PG&Es 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&Es seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its results in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is not sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.
24 See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 290-91 (2010), pet. for reconsideration denied, CLI 15, 71 NRC 479 (2010).
25 See August Order at 17.
26 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-11, 69 NRC 529, 533 (2009).
 
Finally, the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is unreasonably restricted to the consideration of the effects of spectral acceleration on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The only information from the SSC or SHS Report that is presented in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is a table showing seismic initiating event frequencies. The SHU-SAMA Evaluation fails to consider other measures of ground motion that could cause reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts on Diablo Canyon that are more extreme than or different from the impacts of spectral acceleration. These factors include surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.27 Beyond recognizing that PG&E most recently updated its SAMA analysis on July 1, 2015, Amended Contention C differs from the original contention in one significant way.
SLOMFP now alleges that PG&E unreasonably restricted its analysis to considering the effects of spectral acceleration. It contends that PG&E should also have analyzed other measures of ground motion, including surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.
Amended Contention C fails to satisfy the admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)28 for essentially the same reasons as the original version.
27 SLOMFP Motion at 3-4 (internal citations and footnote omitted).
28 Insofar as relevant, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) requires that, for each proffered contention, a petition must:
(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised . . . ; (ii)
Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv)
Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention 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 which support the requestors/petitioners position . . . ; (vi) . . . [P]rovide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application . . . .
 
First, insofar as Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFPs original Contention C,29 as SLOMFP itself recognizes, it suffers from identical deficiencies, which are addressed in the Boards Memorandum and Order of August 6, 2015.30 Second, insofar as Amended Contention C sets forth new allegations, it suffers from similar deficiencies. It is not enough to suggest a preferred method for performing a SAMA analysis. SLOMFP must come forward with a plausible demonstration that PG&Es existing analysis is unreasonable. SLOMFP fails to allege that considering ground displacement, ground velocity or shaking duration would materially change any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of particular SAMAs.
Likewise, SLOMFP does not explain how incorporation of surface fault rupture into the SAMA analysis would make a material difference or how the analysis is unreasonable because PG&E did not consider it. On the contrary, SLOMFP fails to address PG&E studies that considered the potential for surface fault rupture and determined that the ground at and near the [Diablo Canyon] site has not been displaced by faulting for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years.31 Nor has SLOMFP shown how consideration of surface fault rupture would make a material difference in any SAMA analysis conclusions.
Amended Contention C is not admitted.32 29 Reply at 1.
30 August Order at 16-17.
31 PG&E, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report Update, at 2.5-2 & 2.5-67 (Rev. 21 Sept. 2013) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A461).
32 PG&E and the NRC Staff also contend that Amended Contention C is not timely. PG&E Answer to SLOMFPs Motion at 10-12; NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFPs Motion at 14. Although submitted within 30 days of PG&Es updated SAMA analysis, consistent with the definition of timely in the Second Revised Scheduling Order issued on March 26, 2014, PG&E and the Staff nonetheless assert that the new arguments in Amended Contention C could have and should have been asserted earlier. Specifically, SLOMFPs claims concerning PG&Es alleged failure to consider additional measures of ground motion are not based on information that differed materially from information that was available before PG&Es most recent SAMA update. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Because the Board concludes that Amended
 
B. Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205, PG&E moves for summary disposition on Contention EC-1. Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission alleging PG&E failed to address the Shoreline Fault in the SAMA analysis submitted as part of the initial renewal application for Diablo Canyon. Quite apart from the adequacy of PG&Es treatment of the Shoreline Fault in its updated SAMA analysis (discussed above), it is undisputed that PG&Es analysis no longer omits the Shoreline Fault. PG&E therefore asserts that Contention EC-1 is now moot.
The NRC Staff agrees.33 In its decision concerning PG&Es appeal of the Boards initial contention admissibility ruling, it appears the Commission anticipated this very situation, and would agree as well: If SLOMFP intends to challenge the adequacy of any information that PG&E provides in a revision or supplement to its license renewal application regarding the Shoreline Fault, it must submit a new or amended contention.34 Plainly, Contention EC-1, as originally submitted, is now moot.
SLOMFP does not argue otherwise. Rather, it opposes summary disposition on Contention EC-1 solely on the ground that, as SLOMFP interprets the Second Revised Scheduling Order, PG&Es motion is allegedly premature. As SLOMFP would have it, the Board should defer dismissing EC-1 until after the Staff issues a draft supplemental environmental impact statementpresently expected in August 2016.35 Despite the absence of any viable contention, SLOMFP would have the Board hold open this proceeding for nearly another year, at a minimum.
Contention C is not admissible because of its failure to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), we need not rule on its timeliness.
33 NRC Staff Answer to PG&Es Motion at 4-5.
34 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92.
35 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Response to Pacific Gas & Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention EC-1 (Sept. 14, 2015) at 2 n.1, 3-4.
 
Such a construction of our scheduling orders is inconsistent with their purpose and contrary to the Commissions direction that a Licensing Boards jurisdiction terminates when there are no longer any contested matters pending before it.36 As stated at the outset of our Initial Scheduling Order, the purpose of scheduling orders is to ensure proper case management, with the objective of [e]xpediting the disposition of the proceeding; [e]stablishing early and continuing control so that the proceeding will not be protracted because of lack of management and [d]iscouraging wasteful prehearing activities.37 The purpose of scheduling orders is not to vest in any party a right to invoke their provisions to achieve the opposite of the Boards intended objectives. Rather, unless a schedule is so onerous or unfair that it deprives a party of procedural due process, scheduling is a matter of Licensing Board discretion.38 A Licensing Board may modify or waive the provisions of its scheduling orders as it deems appropriate in the interest of sound case management.39 The exercise of such discretion is especially appropriate here. SLOMFPs suggestion that this adjudication should continue, while it is clear that no genuinely contested matter remains pending before the Board, runs directly counter to the Commissions direction as to how its Licensing Boards should manage their cases.
36 DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-15-10, 81 NRC 535, 564 n.46 (2015).
37 Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling Order) (Sept. 15, 2010) at 1 (unpublished) (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(c)).
38 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64, 95 (1986).
39 See S. Cal. Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-212, 7 AEC 986, 991 (1974) (Of necessity, licensing boards must be vested with considerable latitude in determining the course of the proceedings which they are called upon to conduct. . . . We will enter that arena only to the extent necessary to insure that no party has been denied a fair opportunity to advance its cause.).
 
Indeed, had PG&E not moved for summary disposition in these circumstances, in all likelihood the Board itself would have issued an order to show cause why Contention EC-1 should not now be dismissed as moot. SLOMFP requested and was allowed some 45 days in which to respond to PG&Es motion for summary disposition.40 SLOMFP has not been prejudiced in any way by having to address the mootness of Contention EC-1 in responding to PG&Es motion, rather than in responding to the Boards order to show cause.
PG&Es motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.
40 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (July 31, 2015); Order Granting Extension of Time at 2.
 
III. ORDER For the reasons stated:
: 1. SLOMFPs motion to file Amended Contention C is denied.
: 2. PG&Es motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.
: 3. In the absence of any admitted or proffered contention, this proceeding is terminated.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b), any petition for review of this Memorandum and Order must be filed within twenty-five (25) days after it is served.
It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                        /RA/
Paul S. Ryerson, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
                                                        /RA/
Dr. Gary S. Arnold ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
                                                          /RA/
Nicholas G. Trikouros ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 21, 2015
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                )
                                                )
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY                  )  Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR
                                                )
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,              )
Units 1 and 2)                                )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
(LBP-15-29) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission            U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel        Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23                              Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001                      Washington, DC 20555-0001 Paul S. Ryerson, Chair                        Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
Administrative Judge                          E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov E-mail: paul.ryerson@nrc.gov                  Beth Mizuno, Esq.
E-mail: beth.mizuno@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikouros                          Catherine Kanatas, Esq.
Administrative Judge                          E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov            Joseph Lindell, Esq.
E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Gary S. Arnold                                Daniel Straus, Esq.
Administrative Judge                          E-mail: daniel.strauss@nrc.gov E-mail: gary.arnold@nrc.gov                    John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail: john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Alana Wase, Law Clerk E-mail: alana.wase@nrc.gov                    OGC Mail Center E-mail: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission            U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication    Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1                              Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001                      Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center                              Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov                      E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
 
2 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding) (LBP-15-29)
Counsel for Pacific Gas and                San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Electric Company                          1123 Flora Road Winston & Strawn, LLP                      Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 101 California Street                      Jill ZamEk, Esq.
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802                jzk@charter.net David A. Repka, Esq.
E-mail: drepka@winston.com Tyson Smith, Esq.                          Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers E-mail: trsmith@winston.com                  For Peace Carlos Sisco, Senior Paralegal              Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg E-mail: csisco@winston.com                  1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Diane Curran, Esq.
dcurran@harmoncurran.com Ayres Law Group, LLP 1707 L Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Ayres, Esq.
E-mail: ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com John Bernetich, Esq.
E-mail: bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com Jessica L. Olson, Esq.
E-mail: olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com
[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser   ]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of October, 2015}}

Latest revision as of 09:19, 5 February 2020

Memorandum and Order LBP-15-29 (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)
ML15294A301
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 10/21/2015
From: Gary Arnold, Paul Ryerson, Nicholas Trikouros
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-275-LR, 50-323-LR, ASLBP 10-900-01-LR-BD01, RAS 28420, FOIA/PA-2016-0438
Download: ML15294A301 (14)
v • d • e


Text

LBP 15-29 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman Dr. Gary S. Arnold Nicholas G. Trikouros In the Matter of Docket No. 50-275-LR Docket No. 50-323-LR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 10-900-01-LR-BD01 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) October 21, 2015 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)

This proceeding concerns an application by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) to renew its operating licenses for two nuclear power reactors at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant located near San Luis Obispo, California.1 Before the Board are motions (1) by intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) to file an Amended Contention C,2 and (2) by PG&E for summary disposition on 1 The background of this proceeding is set forth in prior decisions of the Board and of the Commission. See, e.g., LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 273-75 (2010); CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429-31 (2011); LBP-15-6, 81 NRC 314, 316 (2015); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Motions to File New Contentions) (Aug. 6, 2015) at 2-4 (unpublished) (August Order).

2 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation)

(July 31, 2015) (SLOMFP Motion).

Contention EC-1.3 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the first motion, grant the second, andin the absence of any contentionterminate the proceeding.

I. BACKGROUND On January 21, 2010, the NRC published a Federal Register notice of an opportunity for a hearing on PG&Es license renewal application.4 SLOMFP filed a timely petition to intervene, which the Board granted.5 After review by the Commission, one admitted contention Contention EC-1remained.6 Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission that alleges PG&E failed, in the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis required by 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), to discuss a recently-discovered fault (the Shoreline Fault) located near the plant.7 Subsequently, both SLOMFP and another petitioner moved to admit additional contentions,8 which the Board rejected.9 Of especial relevance is SLOMFPs motion, filed April 15, 2015, to admit Contention C. Contention C alleged thatalthough PG&Es SAMA 3 Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (July 31, 2015).

4 75 Fed. Reg. 3493, 3493 (Jan. 21, 2010).

5 LBP-10-15, 72 NRC at 345.

6 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 437, 444, 452, 458.

7 Id. at 444; see also Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Mar. 22, 2010) at 8-20.

8 Friends of the Earths Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Environmental Report for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 6, 2015); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr.

15, 2015) (Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D).

9 LBP-15-06, 81 NRC at 315; August Order at 1.

analysis now addressed the Shoreline Faultits analysis still failed to adequately account for seismic hazards at the facility.10 On July 31, 2015, shortly before the Board ruled the original Contention C inadmissible,11 SLOMFP moved to amend Contention C in response to PG&Es further updating its SAMA analysis.12 On the same day, PG&E moved for summary disposition on the only admitted contention (Contention EC-1).

On August 13, 2015, the NRC Staff submitted a response supporting PG&Es summary disposition motion.13 On August 25, 2015, PG&E and the Staff submitted oppositions to SLOMFPs motion to amend Contention C.14 With the parties consent, the Board allowed SLOMFP until September 14, 2015 to respond to PG&Es summary disposition motion and to reply in support of its motion to amend.15 10 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-15.

11 August Order at 16-17.

12 SLOMFP Motion at 1-2.

13 NRC Staff Answer to Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (Aug. 13, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to PG&Es Motion).

14 Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Answer Opposing Proposed Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (PG&E Answer to SLOMFPs Motion); NRC Staff Answer to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFPs Motion).

15 Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 3, 2015)

(unpublished) (Order Granting Extension of Time); Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 25, 2015) (unpublished).

II. ANALYSIS A. Motion to File Amended Contention C As SLOMFP acknowledges, Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFPs original Contention C,16 which the Board previously rejected as inadmissible.17 As first proffered, Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis) stated:

PG&Es SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&Es Amended ER) is inadequate to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&Es evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. As a result, PG&Es evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures.

While PG&E claims that the results and insights of its 2014 interim probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) (labeled DCO3) are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis, by PG&Es own admission, DCO3 is only an interim PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.

Nor does PG&Es promise to update the DCO3 with the results of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&Es SAMA Analysis, because PG&Es 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&Es seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its results in a revised SAMA Analysis would not be sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.18 As more fully explained in our August 6, 2015 Memorandum and Order, the Board determined that, for three separate and independent reasons, Contention C failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

16 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Reply to Oppositions to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation) (Sept. 14, 2015) at 1 (Reply).

17 August Order at 16-17.

18 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-3 (internal citations omitted).

First, insofar as Contention C alleged deficiencies per se in the seismic reevaluation that PG&E submitted in a Part 50 process designed to consider the adequacy of the Diablo Canyon plants current licensing basis, the Board ruled that a Part 54 license renewal proceeding is not a proper forum for litigation of section 50.54(f) licensing basis issues with no connection to any SAMA.19 Second, SLOMFP failed to make a plausible showing that PG&Es approach to SAMAs was not reasonable.20 As the Commission has recognized, [i]t will always be possible to envision and propose some alternate approach, some additional detail to include, some refinement.21 But that, without more, does not demonstrate a genuine dispute suitable for an evidentiary hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The proper question, the Commission has stated, is not whether there are plausible alternative choices for use in the analysis, but whether the analysis that was done is reasonable under NEPA.22 Unless a petitioner sets forth a supported contention pointing to an apparent error or deficiency that may have significantly skewed the environmental conclusions, there is no genuine material dispute for hearing.23 19 August Order at 16.

20 Id.

21 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-15, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2012).

22 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-08, 75 NRC 393, 406 (2012) (citing NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC 301, 323 (2012)). Although a SAMA analysis considers safety issues, it is in actuality an environmental review that must be judged under NEPAs rule of reason and not under the safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. See Pilgrim, CLI-12-15, 75 NRC at 706-07.

23 Davis-Besse, CLI-12-08, 75 NRC at 407.

Third, although the purpose of SAMA analyses is to identify safety enhancements that would be cost beneficial to adopt,24 Contention C never addressed the potential impact of any particular seismic model change on the cost-benefit evaluations of the SAMAs that PG&E considered.25 As the Commission has emphasized, the relevant issue is whether any additional SAMA should have been identified as potentially cost beneficial, not whether further analysis may refine the details in the SAMA NEPA analysis.26 Amended Contention C states:

PG&Es SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&Es Amended Environmental Report), as supplemented by the SHU-SAMA Evaluation, is inadequate to satisfy NEPA or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&Es evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. In addition, PG&E fails to take into account all relevant earthquake characteristics that could affect the SAMA analysis, even though PG&Es seismic hazards analysis provides information about these characteristics. As a result of these deficiencies, PG&Es evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures.

While PG&E claims that the results and insights of its 2014 interim probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) (labeled DCO3) are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis[,] by PG&Es own admission, DCO3 is only an interim PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.

Nor does PG&Es recent update of the DCO3 with the results of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&Es SAMA Analysis, because PG&Es 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&Es seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its results in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is not sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.

24 See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 290-91 (2010), pet. for reconsideration denied, CLI 15, 71 NRC 479 (2010).

25 See August Order at 17.

26 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-11, 69 NRC 529, 533 (2009).

Finally, the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is unreasonably restricted to the consideration of the effects of spectral acceleration on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The only information from the SSC or SHS Report that is presented in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is a table showing seismic initiating event frequencies. The SHU-SAMA Evaluation fails to consider other measures of ground motion that could cause reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts on Diablo Canyon that are more extreme than or different from the impacts of spectral acceleration. These factors include surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.27 Beyond recognizing that PG&E most recently updated its SAMA analysis on July 1, 2015, Amended Contention C differs from the original contention in one significant way.

SLOMFP now alleges that PG&E unreasonably restricted its analysis to considering the effects of spectral acceleration. It contends that PG&E should also have analyzed other measures of ground motion, including surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.

Amended Contention C fails to satisfy the admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)28 for essentially the same reasons as the original version.

27 SLOMFP Motion at 3-4 (internal citations and footnote omitted).

28 Insofar as relevant, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) requires that, for each proffered contention, a petition must:

(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised . . . ; (ii)

Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv)

Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention 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 which support the requestors/petitioners position . . . ; (vi) . . . [P]rovide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application . . . .

First, insofar as Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFPs original Contention C,29 as SLOMFP itself recognizes, it suffers from identical deficiencies, which are addressed in the Boards Memorandum and Order of August 6, 2015.30 Second, insofar as Amended Contention C sets forth new allegations, it suffers from similar deficiencies. It is not enough to suggest a preferred method for performing a SAMA analysis. SLOMFP must come forward with a plausible demonstration that PG&Es existing analysis is unreasonable. SLOMFP fails to allege that considering ground displacement, ground velocity or shaking duration would materially change any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of particular SAMAs.

Likewise, SLOMFP does not explain how incorporation of surface fault rupture into the SAMA analysis would make a material difference or how the analysis is unreasonable because PG&E did not consider it. On the contrary, SLOMFP fails to address PG&E studies that considered the potential for surface fault rupture and determined that the ground at and near the [Diablo Canyon] site has not been displaced by faulting for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years.31 Nor has SLOMFP shown how consideration of surface fault rupture would make a material difference in any SAMA analysis conclusions.

Amended Contention C is not admitted.32 29 Reply at 1.

30 August Order at 16-17.

31 PG&E, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report Update, at 2.5-2 & 2.5-67 (Rev. 21 Sept. 2013) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A461).

32 PG&E and the NRC Staff also contend that Amended Contention C is not timely. PG&E Answer to SLOMFPs Motion at 10-12; NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFPs Motion at 14. Although submitted within 30 days of PG&Es updated SAMA analysis, consistent with the definition of timely in the Second Revised Scheduling Order issued on March 26, 2014, PG&E and the Staff nonetheless assert that the new arguments in Amended Contention C could have and should have been asserted earlier. Specifically, SLOMFPs claims concerning PG&Es alleged failure to consider additional measures of ground motion are not based on information that differed materially from information that was available before PG&Es most recent SAMA update. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Because the Board concludes that Amended

B. Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205, PG&E moves for summary disposition on Contention EC-1. Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission alleging PG&E failed to address the Shoreline Fault in the SAMA analysis submitted as part of the initial renewal application for Diablo Canyon. Quite apart from the adequacy of PG&Es treatment of the Shoreline Fault in its updated SAMA analysis (discussed above), it is undisputed that PG&Es analysis no longer omits the Shoreline Fault. PG&E therefore asserts that Contention EC-1 is now moot.

The NRC Staff agrees.33 In its decision concerning PG&Es appeal of the Boards initial contention admissibility ruling, it appears the Commission anticipated this very situation, and would agree as well: If SLOMFP intends to challenge the adequacy of any information that PG&E provides in a revision or supplement to its license renewal application regarding the Shoreline Fault, it must submit a new or amended contention.34 Plainly, Contention EC-1, as originally submitted, is now moot.

SLOMFP does not argue otherwise. Rather, it opposes summary disposition on Contention EC-1 solely on the ground that, as SLOMFP interprets the Second Revised Scheduling Order, PG&Es motion is allegedly premature. As SLOMFP would have it, the Board should defer dismissing EC-1 until after the Staff issues a draft supplemental environmental impact statementpresently expected in August 2016.35 Despite the absence of any viable contention, SLOMFP would have the Board hold open this proceeding for nearly another year, at a minimum.

Contention C is not admissible because of its failure to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), we need not rule on its timeliness.

33 NRC Staff Answer to PG&Es Motion at 4-5.

34 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92.

35 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Response to Pacific Gas & Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention EC-1 (Sept. 14, 2015) at 2 n.1, 3-4.

Such a construction of our scheduling orders is inconsistent with their purpose and contrary to the Commissions direction that a Licensing Boards jurisdiction terminates when there are no longer any contested matters pending before it.36 As stated at the outset of our Initial Scheduling Order, the purpose of scheduling orders is to ensure proper case management, with the objective of [e]xpediting the disposition of the proceeding; [e]stablishing early and continuing control so that the proceeding will not be protracted because of lack of management and [d]iscouraging wasteful prehearing activities.37 The purpose of scheduling orders is not to vest in any party a right to invoke their provisions to achieve the opposite of the Boards intended objectives. Rather, unless a schedule is so onerous or unfair that it deprives a party of procedural due process, scheduling is a matter of Licensing Board discretion.38 A Licensing Board may modify or waive the provisions of its scheduling orders as it deems appropriate in the interest of sound case management.39 The exercise of such discretion is especially appropriate here. SLOMFPs suggestion that this adjudication should continue, while it is clear that no genuinely contested matter remains pending before the Board, runs directly counter to the Commissions direction as to how its Licensing Boards should manage their cases.

36 DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-15-10, 81 NRC 535, 564 n.46 (2015).

37 Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling Order) (Sept. 15, 2010) at 1 (unpublished) (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(c)).

38 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64, 95 (1986).

39 See S. Cal. Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-212, 7 AEC 986, 991 (1974) (Of necessity, licensing boards must be vested with considerable latitude in determining the course of the proceedings which they are called upon to conduct. . . . We will enter that arena only to the extent necessary to insure that no party has been denied a fair opportunity to advance its cause.).

Indeed, had PG&E not moved for summary disposition in these circumstances, in all likelihood the Board itself would have issued an order to show cause why Contention EC-1 should not now be dismissed as moot. SLOMFP requested and was allowed some 45 days in which to respond to PG&Es motion for summary disposition.40 SLOMFP has not been prejudiced in any way by having to address the mootness of Contention EC-1 in responding to PG&Es motion, rather than in responding to the Boards order to show cause.

PG&Es motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.

40 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (July 31, 2015); Order Granting Extension of Time at 2.

III. ORDER For the reasons stated:

1. SLOMFPs motion to file Amended Contention C is denied.
2. PG&Es motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.
3. In the absence of any admitted or proffered contention, this proceeding is terminated.

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b), any petition for review of this Memorandum and Order must be filed within twenty-five (25) days after it is served.

It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

Paul S. Ryerson, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/RA/

Dr. Gary S. Arnold ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/RA/

Nicholas G. Trikouros ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 21, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR

)

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)

(LBP-15-29) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Paul S. Ryerson, Chair Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov E-mail: paul.ryerson@nrc.gov Beth Mizuno, Esq.

E-mail: beth.mizuno@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikouros Catherine Kanatas, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Joseph Lindell, Esq.

E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Gary S. Arnold Daniel Straus, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: daniel.strauss@nrc.gov E-mail: gary.arnold@nrc.gov John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail: john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Alana Wase, Law Clerk E-mail: alana.wase@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center E-mail: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov

2 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding) (LBP-15-29)

Counsel for Pacific Gas and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Electric Company 1123 Flora Road Winston & Strawn, LLP Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 101 California Street Jill ZamEk, Esq.

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 jzk@charter.net David A. Repka, Esq.

E-mail: drepka@winston.com Tyson Smith, Esq. Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers E-mail: trsmith@winston.com For Peace Carlos Sisco, Senior Paralegal Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg E-mail: csisco@winston.com 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Diane Curran, Esq.

dcurran@harmoncurran.com Ayres Law Group, LLP 1707 L Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Ayres, Esq.

E-mail: ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com John Bernetich, Esq.

E-mail: bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com Jessica L. Olson, Esq.

E-mail: olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com

[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of October, 2015

LBP 15-29 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman Dr. Gary S. Arnold Nicholas G. Trikouros In the Matter of Docket No. 50-275-LR Docket No. 50-323-LR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 10-900-01-LR-BD01 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) October 21, 2015 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)

This proceeding concerns an application by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) to renew its operating licenses for two nuclear power reactors at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant located near San Luis Obispo, California.1 Before the Board are motions (1) by intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) to file an Amended Contention C,2 and (2) by PG&E for summary disposition on 1 The background of this proceeding is set forth in prior decisions of the Board and of the Commission. See, e.g., LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 273-75 (2010); CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429-31 (2011); LBP-15-6, 81 NRC 314, 316 (2015); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Motions to File New Contentions) (Aug. 6, 2015) at 2-4 (unpublished) (August Order).

2 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation)

(July 31, 2015) (SLOMFP Motion).

Contention EC-1.3 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the first motion, grant the second, andin the absence of any contentionterminate the proceeding.

I. BACKGROUND On January 21, 2010, the NRC published a Federal Register notice of an opportunity for a hearing on PG&Es license renewal application.4 SLOMFP filed a timely petition to intervene, which the Board granted.5 After review by the Commission, one admitted contention Contention EC-1remained.6 Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission that alleges PG&E failed, in the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis required by 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), to discuss a recently-discovered fault (the Shoreline Fault) located near the plant.7 Subsequently, both SLOMFP and another petitioner moved to admit additional contentions,8 which the Board rejected.9 Of especial relevance is SLOMFPs motion, filed April 15, 2015, to admit Contention C. Contention C alleged thatalthough PG&Es SAMA 3 Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (July 31, 2015).

4 75 Fed. Reg. 3493, 3493 (Jan. 21, 2010).

5 LBP-10-15, 72 NRC at 345.

6 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 437, 444, 452, 458.

7 Id. at 444; see also Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Mar. 22, 2010) at 8-20.

8 Friends of the Earths Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Environmental Report for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 6, 2015); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File New Contentions Regarding Adequacy of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr.

15, 2015) (Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D).

9 LBP-15-06, 81 NRC at 315; August Order at 1.

analysis now addressed the Shoreline Faultits analysis still failed to adequately account for seismic hazards at the facility.10 On July 31, 2015, shortly before the Board ruled the original Contention C inadmissible,11 SLOMFP moved to amend Contention C in response to PG&Es further updating its SAMA analysis.12 On the same day, PG&E moved for summary disposition on the only admitted contention (Contention EC-1).

On August 13, 2015, the NRC Staff submitted a response supporting PG&Es summary disposition motion.13 On August 25, 2015, PG&E and the Staff submitted oppositions to SLOMFPs motion to amend Contention C.14 With the parties consent, the Board allowed SLOMFP until September 14, 2015 to respond to PG&Es summary disposition motion and to reply in support of its motion to amend.15 10 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-15.

11 August Order at 16-17.

12 SLOMFP Motion at 1-2.

13 NRC Staff Answer to Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (Aug. 13, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to PG&Es Motion).

14 Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Answer Opposing Proposed Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (PG&E Answer to SLOMFPs Motion); NRC Staff Answer to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Motion to File Amended Contention C (Aug. 25, 2015) (NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFPs Motion).

15 Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 3, 2015)

(unpublished) (Order Granting Extension of Time); Licensing Board Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 25, 2015) (unpublished).

II. ANALYSIS A. Motion to File Amended Contention C As SLOMFP acknowledges, Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFPs original Contention C,16 which the Board previously rejected as inadmissible.17 As first proffered, Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis) stated:

PG&Es SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&Es Amended ER) is inadequate to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&Es evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. As a result, PG&Es evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures.

While PG&E claims that the results and insights of its 2014 interim probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) (labeled DCO3) are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis, by PG&Es own admission, DCO3 is only an interim PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.

Nor does PG&Es promise to update the DCO3 with the results of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&Es SAMA Analysis, because PG&Es 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&Es seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its results in a revised SAMA Analysis would not be sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.18 As more fully explained in our August 6, 2015 Memorandum and Order, the Board determined that, for three separate and independent reasons, Contention C failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

16 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Reply to Oppositions to File Amended Contention C (Inadequate Consideration of Seismic Risk in SAMA Analysis as Supplemented by SHU-SAMA Evaluation) (Sept. 14, 2015) at 1 (Reply).

17 August Order at 16-17.

18 Motion on Proposed Contentions C and D at 2-3 (internal citations omitted).

First, insofar as Contention C alleged deficiencies per se in the seismic reevaluation that PG&E submitted in a Part 50 process designed to consider the adequacy of the Diablo Canyon plants current licensing basis, the Board ruled that a Part 54 license renewal proceeding is not a proper forum for litigation of section 50.54(f) licensing basis issues with no connection to any SAMA.19 Second, SLOMFP failed to make a plausible showing that PG&Es approach to SAMAs was not reasonable.20 As the Commission has recognized, [i]t will always be possible to envision and propose some alternate approach, some additional detail to include, some refinement.21 But that, without more, does not demonstrate a genuine dispute suitable for an evidentiary hearing, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The proper question, the Commission has stated, is not whether there are plausible alternative choices for use in the analysis, but whether the analysis that was done is reasonable under NEPA.22 Unless a petitioner sets forth a supported contention pointing to an apparent error or deficiency that may have significantly skewed the environmental conclusions, there is no genuine material dispute for hearing.23 19 August Order at 16.

20 Id.

21 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-15, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2012).

22 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-08, 75 NRC 393, 406 (2012) (citing NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC 301, 323 (2012)). Although a SAMA analysis considers safety issues, it is in actuality an environmental review that must be judged under NEPAs rule of reason and not under the safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. See Pilgrim, CLI-12-15, 75 NRC at 706-07.

23 Davis-Besse, CLI-12-08, 75 NRC at 407.

Third, although the purpose of SAMA analyses is to identify safety enhancements that would be cost beneficial to adopt,24 Contention C never addressed the potential impact of any particular seismic model change on the cost-benefit evaluations of the SAMAs that PG&E considered.25 As the Commission has emphasized, the relevant issue is whether any additional SAMA should have been identified as potentially cost beneficial, not whether further analysis may refine the details in the SAMA NEPA analysis.26 Amended Contention C states:

PG&Es SAMA Analysis (Appendix F of PG&Es Amended Environmental Report), as supplemented by the SHU-SAMA Evaluation, is inadequate to satisfy NEPA or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(ii)(L) because PG&Es evaluation of potential mitigation measures is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-to-date analysis of seismic risks. In addition, PG&E fails to take into account all relevant earthquake characteristics that could affect the SAMA analysis, even though PG&Es seismic hazards analysis provides information about these characteristics. As a result of these deficiencies, PG&Es evaluation of the comparative costs and benefits of measures to prevent or mitigate the effects of a severe earthquake does not sufficiently credit the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures.

While PG&E claims that the results and insights of its 2014 interim probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) (labeled DCO3) are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis[,] by PG&Es own admission, DCO3 is only an interim PRA. In addition, it is not sufficiently rigorous or updated to support the SAMA analysis.

Nor does PG&Es recent update of the DCO3 with the results of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of DCO3 to support PG&Es SAMA Analysis, because PG&Es 2015 seismic hazards analysis is also insufficiently rigorous and relies on outdated or unjustified methods and assumptions. Given the inadequacies of PG&Es seismic hazards analysis, to merely cite its results in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is not sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the SAMA Analysis to evaluate potential mitigation measures for severe seismic accidents. Instead, PG&E must cure the significant defects in the underlying data and analyses.

24 See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 290-91 (2010), pet. for reconsideration denied, CLI 15, 71 NRC 479 (2010).

25 See August Order at 17.

26 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-11, 69 NRC 529, 533 (2009).

Finally, the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is unreasonably restricted to the consideration of the effects of spectral acceleration on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The only information from the SSC or SHS Report that is presented in the SHU-SAMA Evaluation is a table showing seismic initiating event frequencies. The SHU-SAMA Evaluation fails to consider other measures of ground motion that could cause reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts on Diablo Canyon that are more extreme than or different from the impacts of spectral acceleration. These factors include surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.27 Beyond recognizing that PG&E most recently updated its SAMA analysis on July 1, 2015, Amended Contention C differs from the original contention in one significant way.

SLOMFP now alleges that PG&E unreasonably restricted its analysis to considering the effects of spectral acceleration. It contends that PG&E should also have analyzed other measures of ground motion, including surface fault rupture, ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking.

Amended Contention C fails to satisfy the admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)28 for essentially the same reasons as the original version.

27 SLOMFP Motion at 3-4 (internal citations and footnote omitted).

28 Insofar as relevant, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) requires that, for each proffered contention, a petition must:

(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised . . . ; (ii)

Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv)

Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention 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 which support the requestors/petitioners position . . . ; (vi) . . . [P]rovide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application . . . .

First, insofar as Amended Contention C is based to a significant extent on SLOMFPs original Contention C,29 as SLOMFP itself recognizes, it suffers from identical deficiencies, which are addressed in the Boards Memorandum and Order of August 6, 2015.30 Second, insofar as Amended Contention C sets forth new allegations, it suffers from similar deficiencies. It is not enough to suggest a preferred method for performing a SAMA analysis. SLOMFP must come forward with a plausible demonstration that PG&Es existing analysis is unreasonable. SLOMFP fails to allege that considering ground displacement, ground velocity or shaking duration would materially change any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of particular SAMAs.

Likewise, SLOMFP does not explain how incorporation of surface fault rupture into the SAMA analysis would make a material difference or how the analysis is unreasonable because PG&E did not consider it. On the contrary, SLOMFP fails to address PG&E studies that considered the potential for surface fault rupture and determined that the ground at and near the [Diablo Canyon] site has not been displaced by faulting for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years.31 Nor has SLOMFP shown how consideration of surface fault rupture would make a material difference in any SAMA analysis conclusions.

Amended Contention C is not admitted.32 29 Reply at 1.

30 August Order at 16-17.

31 PG&E, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report Update, at 2.5-2 & 2.5-67 (Rev. 21 Sept. 2013) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A461).

32 PG&E and the NRC Staff also contend that Amended Contention C is not timely. PG&E Answer to SLOMFPs Motion at 10-12; NRC Staff Answer to SLOMFPs Motion at 14. Although submitted within 30 days of PG&Es updated SAMA analysis, consistent with the definition of timely in the Second Revised Scheduling Order issued on March 26, 2014, PG&E and the Staff nonetheless assert that the new arguments in Amended Contention C could have and should have been asserted earlier. Specifically, SLOMFPs claims concerning PG&Es alleged failure to consider additional measures of ground motion are not based on information that differed materially from information that was available before PG&Es most recent SAMA update. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Because the Board concludes that Amended

B. Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205, PG&E moves for summary disposition on Contention EC-1. Contention EC-1 is a contention of omission alleging PG&E failed to address the Shoreline Fault in the SAMA analysis submitted as part of the initial renewal application for Diablo Canyon. Quite apart from the adequacy of PG&Es treatment of the Shoreline Fault in its updated SAMA analysis (discussed above), it is undisputed that PG&Es analysis no longer omits the Shoreline Fault. PG&E therefore asserts that Contention EC-1 is now moot.

The NRC Staff agrees.33 In its decision concerning PG&Es appeal of the Boards initial contention admissibility ruling, it appears the Commission anticipated this very situation, and would agree as well: If SLOMFP intends to challenge the adequacy of any information that PG&E provides in a revision or supplement to its license renewal application regarding the Shoreline Fault, it must submit a new or amended contention.34 Plainly, Contention EC-1, as originally submitted, is now moot.

SLOMFP does not argue otherwise. Rather, it opposes summary disposition on Contention EC-1 solely on the ground that, as SLOMFP interprets the Second Revised Scheduling Order, PG&Es motion is allegedly premature. As SLOMFP would have it, the Board should defer dismissing EC-1 until after the Staff issues a draft supplemental environmental impact statementpresently expected in August 2016.35 Despite the absence of any viable contention, SLOMFP would have the Board hold open this proceeding for nearly another year, at a minimum.

Contention C is not admissible because of its failure to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), we need not rule on its timeliness.

33 NRC Staff Answer to PG&Es Motion at 4-5.

34 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92.

35 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Response to Pacific Gas & Electric Companys Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention EC-1 (Sept. 14, 2015) at 2 n.1, 3-4.

Such a construction of our scheduling orders is inconsistent with their purpose and contrary to the Commissions direction that a Licensing Boards jurisdiction terminates when there are no longer any contested matters pending before it.36 As stated at the outset of our Initial Scheduling Order, the purpose of scheduling orders is to ensure proper case management, with the objective of [e]xpediting the disposition of the proceeding; [e]stablishing early and continuing control so that the proceeding will not be protracted because of lack of management and [d]iscouraging wasteful prehearing activities.37 The purpose of scheduling orders is not to vest in any party a right to invoke their provisions to achieve the opposite of the Boards intended objectives. Rather, unless a schedule is so onerous or unfair that it deprives a party of procedural due process, scheduling is a matter of Licensing Board discretion.38 A Licensing Board may modify or waive the provisions of its scheduling orders as it deems appropriate in the interest of sound case management.39 The exercise of such discretion is especially appropriate here. SLOMFPs suggestion that this adjudication should continue, while it is clear that no genuinely contested matter remains pending before the Board, runs directly counter to the Commissions direction as to how its Licensing Boards should manage their cases.

36 DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-15-10, 81 NRC 535, 564 n.46 (2015).

37 Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling Order) (Sept. 15, 2010) at 1 (unpublished) (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(c)).

38 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64, 95 (1986).

39 See S. Cal. Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-212, 7 AEC 986, 991 (1974) (Of necessity, licensing boards must be vested with considerable latitude in determining the course of the proceedings which they are called upon to conduct. . . . We will enter that arena only to the extent necessary to insure that no party has been denied a fair opportunity to advance its cause.).

Indeed, had PG&E not moved for summary disposition in these circumstances, in all likelihood the Board itself would have issued an order to show cause why Contention EC-1 should not now be dismissed as moot. SLOMFP requested and was allowed some 45 days in which to respond to PG&Es motion for summary disposition.40 SLOMFP has not been prejudiced in any way by having to address the mootness of Contention EC-1 in responding to PG&Es motion, rather than in responding to the Boards order to show cause.

PG&Es motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.

40 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (July 31, 2015); Order Granting Extension of Time at 2.

III. ORDER For the reasons stated:

1. SLOMFPs motion to file Amended Contention C is denied.
2. PG&Es motion for summary disposition on Contention EC-1 is granted.
3. In the absence of any admitted or proffered contention, this proceeding is terminated.

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b), any petition for review of this Memorandum and Order must be filed within twenty-five (25) days after it is served.

It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

Paul S. Ryerson, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/RA/

Dr. Gary S. Arnold ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/RA/

Nicholas G. Trikouros ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 21, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR

)

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding)

(LBP-15-29) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Paul S. Ryerson, Chair Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov E-mail: paul.ryerson@nrc.gov Beth Mizuno, Esq.

E-mail: beth.mizuno@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikouros Catherine Kanatas, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Joseph Lindell, Esq.

E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Gary S. Arnold Daniel Straus, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: daniel.strauss@nrc.gov E-mail: gary.arnold@nrc.gov John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail: john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Alana Wase, Law Clerk E-mail: alana.wase@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center E-mail: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov

2 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to File Amended Contention, Granting Summary Disposition, and Terminating Proceeding) (LBP-15-29)

Counsel for Pacific Gas and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Electric Company 1123 Flora Road Winston & Strawn, LLP Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 101 California Street Jill ZamEk, Esq.

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 jzk@charter.net David A. Repka, Esq.

E-mail: drepka@winston.com Tyson Smith, Esq. Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers E-mail: trsmith@winston.com For Peace Carlos Sisco, Senior Paralegal Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg E-mail: csisco@winston.com 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Diane Curran, Esq.

dcurran@harmoncurran.com Ayres Law Group, LLP 1707 L Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Ayres, Esq.

E-mail: ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com John Bernetich, Esq.

E-mail: bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com Jessica L. Olson, Esq.

E-mail: olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com

[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of October, 2015

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15294A301&oldid=2446609"