9. Comments on Proposed Decision (PD)

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by PG&E and Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and reply comments were filed by SCE.

PG&E does not object to the role of the IPRP to provide comments and make recommendations regarding PG&E's study plans for the seismic studies prior to implementation of the seismic studies and to review and make recommendations regarding the findings or conclusions drawn from the results of the seismic studies. But to the extent the PD purports to grant the IPRP authority to impose mandatory action on PG&E in connection with the study plans or the findings and/or conclusions of the seismic studies, PG&E disagrees. It asserts that the NRC has exclusive jurisdiction over nuclear safety issues. We agree with PG&E and have made the necessary clarification. PG&E points out that it did not include in its $16.73 million estimate any costs associated with an IPRP. PG&E requests that the decision make clear that the costs of IPRP review and implementation of any IPRP recommendations will be recovered through the DCSSBA, along with the costs to implement the seismic studies. We agree.

PG&E requests the review time for the IPRP be shortened to 14 calendar days from the 30 days contemplated in the PD. We deny this request. Thirty days is barely adequate to review the material expected to be received by the IPRP; any time less would reduce the efficacy of the review.

SCE filed comments and reply comments which support PG&E's comments and recommend a more detailed procedure should the Commission implement the IPRP. SCE recommends:

Composition of IPRP - The IPRP should include at least one member who possesses substantial experience in nuclear plant operations and knowledge of seismic requirements for nuclear power plants, including possessing specific, detailed knowledge of NRC regulations and the demarcation between safety-related and non-safety-related issues for nuclear power plants.

Workshops - The Commission should schedule workshops as part of the IPRP process for reviewing the final results of the seismic studies.

Comments on IPRP Recommendations - The Commission should provide interested parties an opportunity to submit written comments on recommendations made by the IPRP before the Commission requires PG&E to implement the recommendations. The Commission should make the final decision on the IPRP recommendations and any disputes.

In our opinion, implementing SCE's recommendations would cause duplication and delay. Duplication because our Rules of Procedures already provide a vehicle to convene workshops and present comments. Delay because scheduled workshops and comments impinge upon PG&E's ability to proceed promptly. As to the composition of the IPRP, we prefer to leave that to the agencies providing the review.