UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman 

Kristine L. Svinicki 

William C. Ostendorff 

Jeff Baran 

In the Matter of 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) 

Docket Nos. 50-275-LR, 

 50-323-LR 

CLI-16-11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On October 21, 2015, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board granted summary 

disposition of the sole admitted contention in this license renewal proceeding in favor of the 

applicant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).1 The Board also dismissed a proposed 

contention filed by the intervenor, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, and terminated the 

 

1 LBP-15-29, 82 NRC 246, 254 (2015); see Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition on Contention EC-1 (July 31, 2015) (PG&E Motion for Summary 

Disposition); Statement of Material Facts on Which no Genuine Dispute Exists (July 31, 2015); 

Affidavit of L. Jearl Strickland in Support of Summary Disposition of Contention EC-1 (July 31, 

2015). 
- 2 -

proceeding.2 Mothers for Peace has petitioned for review of that decision.3 In addition, Mothers 

for Peace seeks review of the Board’s dismissal of two proposed contentions in an earlier Board 

decision.4 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petitions for review. 

I. BACKGROUND 

In November 2009, PG&E applied to renew the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon 

Units 1 and 2 for an additional twenty years.5 The NRC Staff provided an opportunity for 

interested persons to request an adjudicatory hearing.6 Mothers for Peace filed a request for 

hearing with proposed contentions challenging the application.7 One of its contentions, 

Contention EC-1, was admitted for hearing.8 In that contention, Mothers for Peace asserted that 

PG&E’s Environmental Report, specifically the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) 

 

2 LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 254-55. 

3 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace’s Petition for Review of LBP-15-29 (Nov. 16, 2015) 

(November 2015 Petition for Review). 

4 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace’s Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying 

Motions to File New Contentions) (Sept. 14, 2015) (September 2015 Petition for Review); see

Memorandum and Order (Denying Motions to File New Contentions) (Aug. 6, 2015) 

(unpublished) (August 2015 Board Decision). 

5 Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for an Additional 20-Year Period; Pacific 

Gas & Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Order 

Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) 

for Contention Preparation, 75 Fed. Reg. 3493, 3493 (Jan. 21, 2010). 

6 Id.

7 Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Mar. 22, 

2010). 

8 LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 345 (2010), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 

444, 459 (2011). 
- 3 -

analysis, failed to consider the Shoreline Fault, which was discovered near the Diablo Canyon 

site.9

Today we consider Mothers for Peace’s petitions for review of the Board’s dismissal of 

Contention EC-1 as moot and the Board’s dismissal of three proposed contentions: Contention 

A, which challenges PG&E’s consideration of energy alternatives;10 Contention C, a SAMA 

contention that challenges PG&E’s consideration of seismic hazards;11 and amended 

Contention C, which repeats the arguments in Contention C and provides additional challenges 

to PG&E’s consideration of seismic hazards.12 Mothers for Peace filed these contentions in 

response to PG&E’s February 2015 and July 2015 revisions to its Environmental Report, as well 

as PG&E’s March 2015 response to the NRC’s request for seismic hazard information under 

10 C.F.R. § 50.54(f) (part of the agency’s lessons-learned activities from the Fukushima Dai-ichi 

 

9 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 438, 444. 

10 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), at 2-7 

(New Contentions A and B). 

11 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), at 2-15 (New Contentions C and D). Mothers for Peace also moved 

to file proposed Contentions B and D, which, respectively, challenged PG&E’s conclusions 

regarding the impacts of license renewal in comparison to the impacts of energy alternatives 

and the consideration of flooding risk from local intense precipitation events as part of the SAMA 

analysis. New Contentions A and B at 8-13; New Contentions C and D at 16-18. The Board 

found these contentions inadmissible, and Mothers for Peace did not seek review of their 

dismissal. August 2015 Board Decision at 1; September 2015 Petition for Review at 1 n.1. 

12 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), at 3-25 (Amended Contention C). 
- 4 -

accident and continuing oversight of all plants, outside of license renewal).13 Mothers for Peace 

argues that we should take review of, and reverse, the Board’s rulings.14 PG&E and the Staff 

oppose Mothers for Peace’s petitions for review.15

II. DISCUSSION 

We will grant a petition for review at our discretion, giving due weight to the existence of 

a substantial question with respect to one or more of the following considerations: 

(i) A finding of material fact is clearly erroneous or in conflict with a finding 

as to the same fact in a different proceeding; 

 

13 New Contentions A and B at 1; New Contentions C and D at 1-3; Amended Contention C at 

1-2; see Letter from Barry S. Allen, PG&E, to NRC Document Control Desk (Feb. 25, 2015) 

(ADAMS accession no. ML15057A102 (package)) (February 2015 Revised License Renewal 

Application); Letter from Barry S. Allen, PG&E, to NRC Document Control Desk (Mar. 11, 2015) 

(ML15071A046 (package)) (March 2015 Seismic Hazard Report); Letter from Barry S. Allen, 

PG&E, to NRC Document Control Desk (July 1, 2015) (ML15182A452) (July 2015 SAMA 

Analysis Update). See generally Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term 

Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (Mar. 12, 2012) 

(ML12053A340) (Section 50.54(f) Request); Final Determination of Licensee Seismic 

Probabilistic Risk Assessments Under the Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 “Seismic” of the NearTerm Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (Oct. 27, 2015) 

(ML15194A015). 

14 November 2015 Petition for Review at 1-2; September 2015 Petition for Review at 1. Mothers 

for Peace filed its September 2015 petition before the Board issued its decision in LBP-15-29 

and terminated the proceeding. At that time, the September 2015 petition was interlocutory, 

and Mothers for Peace would have had to demonstrate a basis for review under 10 C.F.R. 

§ 2.341(f)(2). Now that the Board has terminated the proceeding, however, the issue whether 

interlocutory review is appropriate is moot. 

15 Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Opposition to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace’s 

Petition for Review of LBP-15-29 (Dec. 11, 2015); NRC Staff Answer Opposing San Luis Obispo 

Mothers for Peace’s Petition for Review of LBP-15-29 and Review of the Board’s August 6, 

2015 Memorandum and Order (Dec. 11, 2015); Applicant’s Response to Petition for Review

(Oct. 9, 2015), at 1; NRC Staff’s Answer Opposing Commission Review of Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Denying Motion to File New Contentions A and C

(Oct. 9, 2015). 
- 5 -

(ii) A necessary legal conclusion is without governing precedent or is a 

departure from or contrary to established law; 

(iii) A substantial and important question of law, policy, or discretion has been 

raised; 

(iv) The conduct of the proceeding involved a prejudicial procedural error; or 

(v) Any other consideration that we may deem to be in the public interest.16

A. The Board’s Contention Admissibility Rulings 

1. Contention A 

In Contention A, Mothers for Peace argued that PG&E’s amended Environmental Report 

fails to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it 

relies on what Mothers for Peace claimed to be an outdated concept: that alternative energy 

technologies capable of baseload generation would be the only viable candidates for 

replacement power for Diablo Canyon.17 Mothers for Peace also challenged PG&E’s selection 

of a combination of concentrated solar power, wind, solar photovoltaics, geothermal, demandside management, and natural-gas-fired generation, as a “technically feasible and practicable 

technology combination alternative to continuing the operation of [Diablo Canyon].”18 Mothers 

for Peace asserted that this combination alternative “ignores the dramatic developments in . . . 

 

16 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b)(4). 

17 New Contentions A and B at 2-3 (“Chapter 7 of PG&E’s Amended Environmental Report is 

inadequate to satisfy NEPA and 10 CFR § 51.53(c)(2) because it does not evaluate a 

reasonable array of energy alternatives that either currently are commercially viable or will 

become so in the near term (i.e., within the next ten years). PG&E’s energy alternatives 

analysis is based on arbitrary and unreasonable assumptions about the necessary 

characteristics of replacement energy, the viability and availability of alternative energy sources, 

and what constitute[s] reasonable combinations of energy sources.”). 

18 February 2015 Revised License Renewal Application, Enclosure 2, Attach. 1, at 7.2-4; see

New Contentions A and B at 4. 
- 6 -

the individual technologies,” and therefore overly relies on natural gas, “which distorts the 

environmental impact assessment.”19 In a similar vein, Mothers for Peace argued that these 

recent developments in renewable technologies, including their reduction in cost, demonstrate 

that they will be available as alternatives “to replace Diablo Canyon capacity upon the 

termination of its current license[s]” in November 2024 and August 2025, and that PG&E was 

wrong to question their availability during that timeframe.20 In support of its contention, Mothers 

for Peace attached a declaration from Mark Cooper, a Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis at 

the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School.21

The Board found that Mothers for Peace’s claims “either r[an] afoul of binding 

Commission precedents” or otherwise failed to meet the contention admissibility standards in 

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).22 In Seabrook, we clarified the scope of the energy alternatives 

analysis for license renewal, and we explained that an energy alternatives contention in a 

license renewal proceeding must provide facts or expert opinion sufficient to raise a genuine 

dispute as to whether the proposed alternative technology (or combination of technologies) “is 

 

19 New Contentions A and B at 4-5. 

20 Id. at 6; see also id. at 3-4. 

21 Declaration of Mark Cooper in Support of 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), ¶ 1. 

22 August 2015 Board Decision at 8 (citing NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, 

Unit 1), CLI-12-5, 75 NRC 301, 339 n.223, 342 (2012); FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co.

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-8, 75 NRC 393, 397 (2012)). Although 

PG&E had argued that some of Mothers for Peace’s claims in Contention A were not timely 

under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), the Board did not rule on the timeliness of the contentions because 

it found them inadmissible under section 2.309(f)(1). Id. at 5; Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company’s Answer Opposing Proposed Energy Alternatives Contentions (May 1, 2015), at 7, 

10. 
- 7 -

currently commercially viable, or will become so in the near term” to supply baseload power.23 

We reiterated this standard in the Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding shortly after our 

decision in Seabrook.

24 Based on our decisions in those cases, the Board found that Mothers 

for Peace had not presented a “plausible, adequately supported argument” that its preferred 

technologies “could supply sufficient baseload power to replace Diablo Canyon’s generating 

capacity at the time its operating licenses expire.”25 

Mothers for Peace argues that the Board mistakenly relied on Seabrook and DavisBesse because the decisions predated the NRC’s 2013 revision to the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS).26 According to Mothers for Peace, the rationale 

from those cases for whether a given energy alternative is capable of supplying “baseload” 

power is a relic of the 1996 License Renewal GEIS, “which has now been superseded by a 

markedly different analysis” in the 2013 revision.27 Mothers for Peace asserts that the Board’s 

 

23 Seabrook, CLI-12-5, 75 NRC at 342. 

24 Davis-Besse, CLI-12-8, 75 NRC at 397. 

25 August 2015 Board Decision at 9. Additionally, to the extent Dr. Cooper asserted that energy 

efficiency measures could replace baseload power, the Board found that this argument failed to 

raise a genuine dispute because PG&E considered demand-side management and energy 

efficiency programs, and although they do not generate baseload power, PG&E deemed them a 

reasonable alternative. Id. at 9-10. And to the extent Mothers for Peace and Dr. Cooper 

referenced the costs of energy alternatives to argue that PG&E should have considered the 

economic viability of continuing operation of Diablo Canyon in its alternatives analysis, the 

Board found that such a determination is within the purview of state regulatory and utility 

officials and therefore outside the limited scope of the NRC’s license renewal proceeding. Id. at 

11 (citing Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 

Fed. Reg. 28,467, 28,471 (June 5, 1996)). 

26 September 2015 Petition for Review at 2-4. 

27 Id. at 3. 
- 8 -

ruling “raises the question of whether the [revised] GEIS is actually an effective document” and 

asks us “to clarify” that the revised GEIS “governs NEPA reviews of alternative energy 

analyses.”28 Mothers for Peace also argues that it adequately supported its contention, noting 

in particular its challenge to PG&E’s combination alternative, and asserts that the Board 

improperly reached the merits of the contention by “weighing [Dr.] Cooper’s supported opinions 

against the statements in the Amended Environmental Report, and by failing to credit [Dr.] 

Cooper’s expert opinion.”29

Mothers for Peace, however, reads the 2013 GEIS out of context and mischaracterizes 

the Board’s treatment of its contention. Mothers for Peace references a discussion in the 

revised GEIS regarding advancements in replacement power alternatives that explained that the 

generic analysis considers the latest information on energy alternatives but does not incorporate 

anticipated or speculative changes on the future state of technology.30 In this discussion, the 

NRC acknowledged that “it is inevitable that rapidly evolving technologies will outpace 

information presented in the GEIS” and left the consideration of the status of energy alternatives 

and energy policies to individual license renewal reviews.31 

In the 2013 GEIS, the NRC did not, however, revise the agency’s long-standing position 

that energy alternatives, to be considered reasonable, must be “capable of meeting the purpose 

 

28 Id. at 4-5. 

29 Id. at 5. 

30 Id. at 4 (citing “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants—Main Report” (Final Report), NUREG-1437, Rev. 1, Vol. 1 (June 2013), at 1-30 to 1-31 

(ML13106A241) (GEIS Rev. 1)). 

31 GEIS Rev. 1, at 1-31. 
- 9 -

and need of the proposed action (license renewal) or replacing the power generated by a 

nuclear power plant.”32 In fact, consistent with our holdings in Seabrook and Davis-Besse, the 

revised GEIS expressly states that “[a] reasonable alternative must be commercially viable on a 

utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license, or expected 

to become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the 

reactor’s operating license.”33 Mothers for Peace’s misapprehension that the revised GEIS 

reflects a change in the agency’s assessment of how best to address energy alternatives is not 

a valid basis for review of the Board’s decision. 

Further, although Mothers for Peace argues that the Board improperly weighed its 

arguments, we see nothing to indicate that the Board misapplied our case law or the contention 

admissibility standards set forth in our rules of practice.34 The Board reviewed Mothers for 

Peace’s supporting documentation, including Dr. Cooper’s declaration, to determine whether 

Mothers for Peace had advanced a genuine, material dispute with PG&E’s license renewal 

application.35 The Board found that although Dr. Cooper’s statement showed an increase in 

generation from renewable technologies and declining costs and increased use of battery 

 

32 Compare id. at 2-18, with “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants—Main Report” (Final Report), NUREG-1437, Vol. 1 (May 1996), 8-15 

(ML040690705) (evaluating alternatives identified . . . as capable of satisfying the purpose and 

need of the proposed action”). 

33 GEIS Rev. 1, at 2-18. We “need only discuss those alternatives that are reasonable and ‘will 

bring about the ends’ of the proposed action.” Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio 

Rancho, NM 87174), CLI-01-4, 53 NRC 31, 55 (2001) (quoting Citizens Against Burlington v. 

Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 195 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994 (1991)). 

34 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi). 

35 See, e.g., August 2015 Board Decision at 11. 
- 10 -

technology, it did not show that these technologies would be commercially available and 

practicable to satisfy baseload demand in the relevant timeframe for license renewal.36 Without 

a showing of a substantial question as to whether the Board erred, Mothers for Peace has not 

made a case for our review of the Board’s ruling on Contention A. Therefore, we decline to 

review the Board’s ruling on this contention. 

2. Contention C and Amended Contention C 

PG&E submitted an update to its Environmental Report in February 2015 that revised 

the SAMA analysis by addressing, among other things, updated seismic information that 

considered the Shoreline Fault and other regional faults.37 In its Contention C, Mothers for 

Peace argued that the revised SAMA analysis “is not based on a sufficiently rigorous or up-todate analysis of seismic risks.”38 First, Mothers for Peace asserted that the revised SAMA 

analysis is inadequate because it relies on an “interim” seismic analysis and does not 

 

36 Id.

37 See February 2015 Revised License Renewal Application, Enclosure 2, Attach. 2, at 4.20-3. 

38 New Contentions C and D at 2-3 (“PG&E’s SAMA Analysis . . . is inadequate to satisfy 

[NEPA] or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § [51.53(c)(3)(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] . . . are ‘reasonable for the purposes of a 

SAMA analysis’ . . . by PG&E’s own admission, [it] 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 [PRA] with the ‘results’ of its 2015 seismic hazards analysis cure the inadequacy of 

[the PRA] to support PG&E’s SAMA Analysis, because PG&E’s 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.” (internal citations omitted)). 
- 11 -

incorporate information from the updated seismic hazard evaluation that PG&E submitted in 

March 2015 in response to the Staff’s Section 50.54(f) Request.39 PG&E committed to update 

its SAMA analysis with this information, but it had not yet done so at the time Mothers for Peace 

submitted Contention C.40 Second, Mothers for Peace argued that even if PG&E were to have 

incorporated this information, the SAMA analysis would still be inadequate due to purported 

deficiencies in PG&E’s updated seismic hazard evaluation.41 Mothers for Peace filed Amended 

Contention C after PG&E again revised the SAMA analysis in July 2015 to incorporate the 

information from its updated seismic hazard evaluation. Mothers for Peace echoed the 

arguments in Contention C and added new claims relating to the adequacy of PG&E’s seismic 

hazard analysis.42 Dr. David Jackson, Professor of Geophysics, Emeritus, at UCLA, provided 

expert opinion in support of Contention C and Amended Contention C.43 

 

39 Id. at 4-5. 

40 See February 2015 Revised License Renewal Application at 2. 

41 See New Contentions C and D at 6-12 (arguing, among other things, that PG&E may have 

incorrectly mapped the location of the Shoreline Fault and other nearby faults, thereby 

underestimating “the shaking that may be caused by nearby earthquakes” and that even 

assuming a correct mapping, PG&E failed “to account for recent data and models showing that 

earthquakes on given faults may be much larger than previously assumed”). The Board found 

these claims speculative because they were based on a filing that PG&E had not yet submitted. 

August 2015 Board Decision at 17 n.75. 

42 Amended Contention C at 3-4, 13 (arguing that PG&E’s July 2015 SAMA Analysis Update 

fails to consider “the effects of spectral acceleration” and fails to consider “surface fault rupture, 

ground displacement, ground velocity, and duration of shaking”—“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”). 

43 New Contentions C and D at 13; Declaration of Dr. David D. Jackson in Support of San Luis 

Obispo Mothers for Peace’s Motion to File New Contention Regarding Adequacy of Severe 

Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for Diablo Canyon License Renewal Application (Apr. 
- 12 -

Our case law sets forth the standard for determining whether a SAMA-related contention 

raises a genuine, material dispute for an admissible contention under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). 

Because for any SAMA analysis “[i]t will always be possible to envision and propose some 

alternate approach, some additional detail to include, [or] some refinement,”44 we have 

instructed our licensing boards that “the proper question is not whether there are plausible 

alternative choices for use in the analysis, but whether the analysis that was done is reasonable 

under NEPA.”45 We have made clear that “[u]nless 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.”46 

The Board applied this standard to both the original and amended versions of 

Contention C.47 The Board found that, “most importantly,”48 Mothers for Peace “never 

addressed the potential impact of any particular seismic model change on the cost-benefit 

 

15, 2015); Amended Contention C at 19; Declaration of Dr. David D. Jackson in Support of San 

Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace’s Amended Contention C (July 31, 2015). 

44 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power 

Station), CLI-12-15, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2012). 

45 Seabrook, CLI-12-5, 75 NRC at 323. This stems from NEPA’s “rule of reason.” See Entergy 

Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), 

CLI-10-22, 72 NRC 202, 208 (2010); see also Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 315 (2010) 

(observing that “while there ‘will always be more data that could be gathered,’ agencies ‘must 

have some discretion to draw the line and move forward with decisionmaking’” (quoting Town of 

Winthrop v. FAA, 535 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2008))); Seabrook, CLI-12-8, 75 NRC at 323 (“SAMA 

adjudications would prove endless if hearings were triggered merely by suggested alternative 

inputs and methodologies that conceivably could alter the cost-benefit conclusions.”). 

46 Davis-Besse, CLI-12-8, 75 NRC at 407 (emphasis omitted). 

47 See LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 250-52; August 2015 Board Decision at 15-17. 

48 August 2015 Board Decision at 17. 
- 13 -

evaluations of the [severe accident mitigation measures] that PG&E considered.”49 That is, in 

the Board’s assessment, both versions of the contention lacked the necessary link between 

Mothers for Peace’s claimed deficiencies in the underlying seismic hazard evaluations and the 

environmental conclusions in PG&E’s SAMA analysis.50 To the extent that Mothers for Peace 

challenged the adequacy of PG&E’s updated seismic hazard evaluation per se—that is, 

independent of the SAMA analysis—the Board found such a challenge outside the scope of the 

license renewal proceeding because the seismic hazard evaluation was submitted in connection 

with the agency’s continuing oversight of the plant.51 At bottom, the Board found that Mothers 

for Peace had not demonstrated that PG&E’s analysis was unreasonable under NEPA.52

Mothers for Peace argues that our review of the Board’s ruling on both original and 

Amended Contention C is warranted because the Board committed factual and legal errors by 

mischaracterizing the contentions and judging them on their merits.53 Mothers for Peace faults 

the Board for what it claims was an improper weighing and crediting of PG&E’s views over 

those of Dr. Jackson.54 But the record reflects that the Board adhered to our case law and the 

contention admissibility standards in our rules of practice. The Board did not weigh Dr. 

Jackson’s declaration, but rather looked to whether Mothers for Peace had demonstrated a 

 

49 LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 250; see also August 2015 Board Decision at 17. 

50 See LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 250-52; August 2015 Board Decision at 17. 

51 LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 250, 252; August 2015 Board Decision at 16. 

52 LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 252; August 2015 Board Decision at 16-17. 

53 November 2015 Petition for Review at 4; see also September 2015 Petition for Review at 6. 

54 September 2015 Petition for Review at 8-9; see also November 2015 Petition for Review at 5-

6. 
- 14 -

connection between the claimed deficiencies in PG&E’s updated seismic evaluation and the 

results of the SAMA analysis. The Board found that Mothers for Peace did not make that 

connection.55

According to Mothers for Peace, the original and amended contentions asserted that 

information had been “omitted” from the SAMA analysis—rendering them contentions of 

“omission” rather than contentions of “adequacy”—and therefore Mothers for Peace was not 

required to describe how its criticisms of PG&E’s updated seismic hazard evaluation would 

materially affect the SAMA analysis’ conclusions.56 Mothers for Peace likens its arguments to 

those in Contention EC-1 and our decision upholding the Board’s admission of that contention 

on appeal.57 In that decision, we cited our reasoning in McGuire/Catawba for admitting a 

portion of a contention that asserted that the applicant failed to consider the results of a 

particular study in its SAMA analysis, finding it analogous to Contention EC-1, which claimed 

that PG&E’s SAMA analysis failed to consider the Shoreline Fault.58 We also observed that not 

 

55 See LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 252; August 2015 Board Decision at 17. Mothers for Peace also 

contends that the Board improperly restricted the scope of NEPA by finding its challenge to 

PG&E’s updated seismic hazard evaluation outside the scope of the proceeding. September 

2015 Petition for Review at 6-7. But the Board merely observed that to the extent Mothers for 

Peace sought to challenge the updated seismic hazard evaluation itself—a review ongoing as 

part of the Staff’s oversight activities for Diablo Canyon—without any connection to the SAMA 

analysis, it was outside the scope. See LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 250; August 2015 Board 

Decision at 16. 

56 See November 2015 Petition for Review at 4; September 2015 Petition for Review at 11. 

Mothers for Peace nevertheless asserts that it met the standard for an admissible contention by 

challenging the methodology and conclusions in PG&E’s seismic hazard analyses. See

November 2015 Petition for Review at 5-6; September 2015 Petition for Review at 10-11. 

57 See November 2015 Petition for Review at 4-5; September 2015 Petition for Review at 11. 

58 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 442-43 (citing Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 

and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-17, 56 NRC 1, 8-11 (2002)). 
- 15 -

every SAMA contention must be supported in the same way, and that “[t]he support required for 

a contention necessarily will depend on the issue sought to be litigated.”59 

Whether a contention is characterized as one of “omission” or “adequacy” is a matter of 

degree.60 Contentions that claim a failure to include an entire subject matter or study might be 

considered contentions of omission.61 Contentions that argue for alternative analyses or 

refinements to a SAMA analysis might be characterized as contentions of “adequacy.” But as 

we explained in our decision upholding Contention EC-1, the label is not the deciding factor at 

the contention admissibility stage.62 It is the arguments made and the support provided for 

those arguments, and ultimately, the demonstration of a genuine dispute as to whether the 

SAMA analysis is reasonable under NEPA, that determines whether or not a SAMA contention 

is admissible.63 This theme runs throughout our SAMA case law.64

Here, the Board found that Mothers for Peace had not attempted to connect its claims 

with the SAMA analysis. This is insufficient support for the contentions regardless of how they 

 

59 Id. at 442. 

60 See Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 382-83 (2002) (discussing the “difference between 

contentions that merely allege an ‘omission’ of information and those that challenge 

substantively and specifically how particular information has been discussed in a license 

application”). 

61 See id.; McGuire/Catawba, CLI-02-17, 56 NRC at 9-11. 

62 See CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 442. The importance of this distinction increases, however, in the 

face of an argument that the contention has become moot. See McGuire/Catawba, CLI-02-28, 

56 NRC at 382-83; infra Part II.B. 

63 See CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 442-43. 

64 See id. at 443; Davis-Besse, CLI-12-8, 75 NRC at 406-07; Seabrook, CLI-12-5, 75 NRC at 

323-24; McGuire/Catawba, CLI-02-17, 56 NRC at 8. 
- 16 -

are labeled. Therefore, we find that Mothers for Peace has not raised a substantial question 

regarding the Board’s ruling on either original or Amended Contention C. 

B. The Board’s Summary Disposition of Contention EC-1

We reach the same conclusion with regard to the Board’s ruling on Contention EC-1. 

Contention EC-1 states that PG&E’s SAMA analysis did not satisfy the requirements of NEPA or 

10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) because it “fail[ed] to consider information regarding the Shoreline 

[Fault] that is necessary for an understanding of seismic risks to the Diablo Canyon power 

plant.”65 PG&E incorporated information regarding the Shoreline Fault into its SAMA analysis 

and then filed a motion for summary disposition on the ground that the contention had become 

moot, which the Board granted.66 The sole argument that Mothers for Peace makes for our 

discretionary review is that it did not expect to have to defend against a dispositive motion on 

Contention EC-1 until after the Staff issued the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (Draft SEIS), which the Staff currently plans to issue in August 2016.67 Mothers for 

Peace argues that it had relied on the Board’s most recent scheduling order and that the 

Board’s granting of PG&E’s motion before issuance of the Draft SEIS was “inconsistent with the 

 

65 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 444 (“PG&E’s Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives [(SAMA)] 

analysis fails to consider information regarding the Shoreline [Fault] that is necessary for an 

understanding of seismic risks to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. As a result, PG&E’s 

SAMA analysis does not satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

[(NEPA)] for consideration of alternatives or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. 

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).” (first and third alterations in original)). 

66 PG&E Motion for Summary Disposition at 4-5; LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 254. 

67 See November 2015 Petition for Review at 10-12; Letter from Joseph A. Lindell, counsel for 

NRC Staff, to the Administrative Judges (Oct. 15, 2015) (Staff Schedule Update). 
- 17 -

Commission’s legal and policy precedents protecting the fairness of NRC adjudications.”68 

Mothers for Peace takes issue with the Board’s case management, suggesting that the Board 

sacrificed fairness to expediency.69 The history of this proceeding, however, reflects otherwise. 

After it admitted Contention EC-1, the Board issued its initial scheduling order in 

September 2010,70 and since that time, it has kept us apprised of changes to the hearing 

schedule. In June 2011, the Board notified us of an over four-year delay in the adjudicatory 

proceeding resulting from PG&E’s request for the Staff to “‘delay the final processing’”71 of 

PG&E’s license renewal application until PG&E completed seismic imaging studies that had 

been requested by the State of California.72 The Board directed PG&E to issue monthly 

updates on the status of its seismic imaging project to inform the Board’s schedule for the 

adjudicatory proceeding.73 

 

68 November 2015 Petition for Review at 10-11. 

69 Id. at 11. 

70 Initial Scheduling Order (Sept. 15, 2010). 

71 Letter from David A. Repka, counsel for PG&E, to the Administrative Judges (Apr. 12, 2011), 

at 1 (quoting attached Letter from John T. Conway, PG&E, to NRC Document Control Desk 

(Apr. 10, 2011), at 2) (April 2011 PG&E Letter). 

72 Notice of 52-Month Delay and Order Requiring Status Reports (June 7, 2011), at 2-3 

(unpublished) (Notice of Delay). PG&E recognized that the results of the studies could inform 

the state’s reviews under the Coastal Zone Management Act and the California Coastal Act, and 

it noted that the NRC could not issue renewed licenses for Diablo Canyon without concluding 

that license issuance would be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act. See April 

2011 PG&E Letter at 1-2. PG&E stated that “in light of the [Fukushima Dai-ichi accident] and 

the interest in California on the issue of seismic safety at [Diablo Canyon], PG&E believe[d] it 

prudent to complete these studies and issue a report addressing the results prior to issuance of 

a state [Coastal Zone Management Act] consistency certification and a renewed NRC operating 

license.” Id. at 1. 

73 Notice of Delay at 4-5. 
- 18 -

In its most recent iteration of the scheduling order, issued in March 2014, the Board 

amended the deadlines for new or amended environmental contentions and dispositive motions, 

including the deadline for dispositive motions on Contention EC-1.74 The Board extended the 

deadline for filing a dispositive motion from ten to thirty days after the event on which the motion 

was based, with the additional instruction that dispositive motions based on the final seismic 

imaging report should not be filed before, but would be deemed timely if filed within thirty days 

after, issuance of the Draft SEIS.75 And the Board instructed that dispositive motions with 

regard to Contention EC-1 would be due thirty days after issuance of the Draft SEIS.76 The 

Board explained that this “ultimate deadline” was “in addition to, not in lieu of” the general thirtyday deadline for dispositive motions.77

At the time the Board set this schedule, PG&E had expected to issue the final seismic 

imaging report in June 2014, and the Staff had expected to issue the Draft SEIS in September 

2014.78 To avoid duplication of effort on the part of the parties and the Board if contentions or 

dispositive motions were filed based on the seismic imaging report, only to be superseded by 

the issuance of the Draft SEIS a few months later, the Board based the deadlines on the Staff’s 

issuance of the Draft SEIS.79 

 

74 Second Revised Scheduling Order (Mar. 26, 2014), at 1-2 (unpublished) (Second Revised 

Scheduling Order). 

75 Id. at 2. 

76 Id.

77 Id.

78 See id. at 1 & nn.1-2. 

79 See Tr. at 642-46. 
- 19 -

But fact-of-life changes occurred and the schedule slipped still further. In June 2014, the 

Board notified us of an additional eleven-month delay.80 PG&E submitted its final seismic 

imaging project report in September 2014.81 As stated above, the Staff now expects to issue 

the Draft SEIS in August 2016.82

In its February 2015 revision to its Environmental Report, PG&E updated its SAMA 

analysis with information from a 2014 probabilistic risk assessment that “incorporated seismic 

hazard curves that include the Shoreline Fault, as well as updated hazard curves for other 

regional faults,” using information that PG&E obtained as part of its development of a report on 

the Shoreline Fault that PG&E had provided to the Staff in 2011.83 PG&E explained that the 

2011 Shoreline Fault Report provided “the most recent probabilistic hazard analyses available 

at the time.”84 Shortly thereafter, PG&E submitted its updated seismic hazard evaluation.85 

 

80 See Notice of Additional Eleven-Month Delay in Adjudicatory Proceeding (June 23, 2014), at 

2 (unpublished). 

81 See Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project (Sept. 10, 2014) (ML14260A106 

(package)). 

82 Staff Schedule Update at 1. The Staff expects to issue the Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement in May 2017. Id. The Staff issued the Safety Evaluation Report in June 

2011, and expects that any supplements to the Safety Evaluation Report would be issued in 

August 2016. Id.

83 PG&E Motion for Summary Disposition at 4; see also February 2015 Amended License 

Renewal Application, Enclosure 2, Attach. 2, at 4.20-3. See generally “Report on the Analysis 

of the Shoreline Fault Zone, Central Coastal California: Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission” (Jan. 2011) (ML110140431). 

84 PG&E Motion for Summary Disposition at 4. When it submitted its amended Environmental 

Report, PG&E was in the process of preparing its updated seismic hazard evaluation as part of 

its response to the Staff’s Section 50.54(f) Request. Id.

85 Id.; March 2015 Seismic Hazard Report. 
- 20 -

PG&E then evaluated the effect of its updated seismic hazard evaluation on the SAMA analysis 

and submitted this evaluation in July 2015.86 

At oral argument with the parties on the admissibility of Mothers for Peace’s new 

contentions, including Mothers for Peace’s challenge to PG&E’s updated SAMA analysis in 

Contention C, the Board asked PG&E whether it intended “to take any action” with respect to 

Contention EC-1 in light of the fact that PG&E had updated its SAMA analysis with information 

concerning the Shoreline Fault.87 Counsel for PG&E responded, “I think it's fair to say that we 

do.”88 PG&E’s motion for summary disposition followed. 

PG&E argued that summary disposition was appropriate because the claimed omission 

from the SAMA analysis—consideration of the Shoreline Fault—had been cured and the 

contention had become moot.89 Thus, it asserted that there remained no genuine issue of 

material fact and that it was entitled to a decision as a matter of law.90 Mothers for Peace 

immediately moved for an unopposed extension of time to respond, which the Board granted.91 

 

86 PG&E Motion for Summary Disposition at 5; July 2015 SAMA Analysis Update. 

87 Tr. at 880-81. 

88 Id. at 881. PG&E explained that it had not filed a motion up to that point but that Contention 

EC-1 “is certainly addressed by the information” in PG&E’s updated SAMA analysis. Id.

89 See PG&E Motion for Summary Disposition at 3-5. 

90 Id. at 5. 

91 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (July 31, 

2015); Order (Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time) (Aug. 3, 2015) (unpublished) 

(Board Extension Order). 
- 21 -

The Staff supported PG&E’s motion, agreeing with PG&E that Contention EC-1 had become 

moot upon PG&E’s update of its SAMA analysis.92 

In its answer, Mothers for Peace did not dispute that the claimed omission had been 

cured. Instead, Mothers for Peace focused solely on the timing of PG&E’s motion, arguing that 

it was precluded by the Board’s March 2014 scheduling order and therefore had been filed 

prematurely.93 The Board agreed with PG&E and the Staff that summary disposition was 

appropriate and dismissed Contention EC-1 as moot.94 

In ruling on PG&E’s motion, the Board observed that we had anticipated, in our decision 

upholding the Board’s admission of Contention EC-1, the eventual mootness of the contention 

after a revision or supplement to the license renewal application.95 We explained that a 

challenge to the adequacy of such a revision would need to be made in the form of a new or 

amended contention.96 The Board rejected Mothers for Peace’s reading of its March 2014 

scheduling order to preclude PG&E’s motion, finding that “[s]uch a construction . . . is 

inconsistent with [its] 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 

 

92 See NRC Staff Answer to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition on Contention EC-1 (Aug. 13, 2015), at 1, 4-5. 

93 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 3-4. 

94 LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 253-54. 

95 Id. at 253 (citing CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92). 

96 CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92. 
- 22 -

it.’”97 The Board further explained that “[t]he 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,” and that a licensing board “may modify or waive the provisions of its scheduling 

orders as it deems appropriate in the interest of sound case management.”98 The Board 

reasoned, “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.’”99

Although Mothers for Peace now maintains that it was prejudiced when the Board 

granted PG&E’s motion for summary disposition, the record reflects that the Board managed the 

case fairly, as well as efficiently.100 Licensing boards have considerable discretion in their 

management of adjudicatory proceedings.101 Given the procedural history outlined above, the 

 

97 LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 253 (quoting DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), 

CLI-15-10, 81 NRC 535, 564 n.46 (2015)). 

98 Id. at 254 (citing Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3), ALAB-212, 7 AEC 986, 991 (1974)). 

99 Id. (quoting Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), 

ALAB-841, 24 NRC 64, 95 (1986)). 

100 See November 2015 Petition for Review at 11-12. 

101 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.319; Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 

Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-28, 72 NRC 553, 554 (2010) (expecting the Board 

“to make full use of its broad authority under [the] rules to establish and maintain a fair and 

disciplined hearing process, avoiding extensions of time absent good cause, unnecessary 

multiple rounds of briefs, or other unnecessary delay”). 
- 23 -

litigation of Contention EC-1 cannot be said to have been rushed.102 And when PG&E filed its 

motion, Mothers for Peace was provided with a full and fair opportunity to respond.103 

Ultimately, however, little remained for Mothers for Peace to do in response to the 

motion for summary disposition, aside from filing a new or amended contention that challenged 

the adequacy of PG&E’s SAMA analysis revisions—which Mothers for Peace did with its 

proposed original and Amended Contention C.104 In the McGuire/Catawba proceeding, after the 

applicant had supplied information from the study that the petitioner had claimed to have been 

omitted, we explained: “[i]f we did not require an amended or new contention in ‘omission’ 

situations, an original contention alleging simply a failure to address a subject could readily be 

transformed—without basis or support—into a broad series of disparate new claims,” which 

“effectively would circumvent NRC contention-pleading standards.”105 Therefore, as the Board 

here noted, had PG&E not moved for summary disposition, the Board reasonably could have 

requested briefing on the question of Contention EC-1’s mootness.106 We find that Mothers for 

 

102 Moreover, although the Board did not rely on this point, the March 2014 scheduling order 

fairly can be read to allow PG&E’s motion because the Board’s “ultimate deadline” for 

dispositive motions on Contention EC-1 expressly was provided “in addition to, not in lieu of” the 

general thirty-day deadline for dispositive motions. Second Revised Scheduling Order at 2 

(emphasis added). PG&E filed its motion for summary disposition thirty days after submitting its 

July 2015 SAMA analysis update. See PG&E Motion for Summary Disposition at 1 n.1. 

103 See Board Extension Order at 2. 

104 See CLI-11-11, 74 NRC at 443 n.92; accord McGuire/Catawba, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 383. 

105 See McGuire/Catawba, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 383. 

106 LBP-15-29, 82 NRC at 254. Moreover, as the Board recognized, if the Board were to have 

allowed the contention to remain pending for a year or more in anticipation of the Draft SEIS, 

when it was “clear that no genuinely contested matter” remained before it, the Board would have 

acted counter to our direction that a Board’s jurisdiction terminates when the contested matters 

before it have been resolved. See id.; Fermi, CLI-15-10, 81 NRC at 564 n.46; Virginia Electric 

and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-12-14, 75 NRC 692, 699-701 (2012); cf.
- 24 -

Peace has not raised a substantial question that it was prejudiced by the Board’s ruling or that 

the Board erred in its dismissal of Contention EC-1. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Mothers for Peace has not raised a substantial question warranting review of the Board’s 

dismissal of proposed Contention A, proposed original or Amended Contention C, or the 

Board’s summary disposition of Contention EC-1. We therefore deny its petitions for review. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL 

 /RA/ . 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 2nd day of June, 2016 

 

Union Electric Co. (Callaway Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-15-11, 81 NRC 546, 550 (2015) 

(rejecting the admission of “placeholder” contentions); Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-09-5, 69 NRC 115, 120 (2009) (noting that the 

regulations do not contemplate contentions that function as a “placeholder” for a further motion 

to be filed later). 
Additional Views of Commissioner Baran 

I concur with the Commission’s memorandum and order but write separately to expand 

on the discussion of how the NRC Staff evaluates and defines reasonable energy alternatives 

when conducting a NEPA analysis. As the Commission has previously recognized, the 

electricity generation sector is a dynamic environment featuring rapidly evolving technologies. 

As a result, the particular generation resources qualifying as “baseload” will change over time. 

For example, as energy storage technologies mature, previously intermittent renewable energy 

generation paired with energy storage are functioning as baseload generation. Energy 

efficiency improvements and demand response strategies also need to be analyzed as plausible 

alternatives to baseload nuclear generation in the agency’s NEPA reviews. Reflecting this 

evolution of what constitutes “baseload power” in our NEPA reviews will only enhance their 

utility for decisionmakers and the public. 
 

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 COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI16-11 have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange 

and e-mail. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

Mail Stop: T-3F23 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

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 

Catherine L. Scott, Esq. 

E-mail: catherine.scott@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 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-16-11

2

Counsel for Pacific Gas and 

 Electric Company 

Winston & Strawn, LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

David A. Repka, Esq. 

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. 

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 Brian Newell] 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 2nd day of June 2016