Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel

Public Comments

DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)
August 2, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

At a recent meeting of the Engagement Panel, Dr. Peter Lam was scheduled to respond to questions and concerns, but time ran short so that never happened. It was stated that a special meeting would be scheduled to allow Dr. Lam to share his expertise. When will that happen? I don't see it on a schedule of future meetings.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
June 10, 2021Transportation Impacts

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. RANDS: This is Janine Rands from San Luis Obispo and I'm concerned -- I'm making a call about the transportation of anything related to the – anything toxic or anything related to withdrawal from the Diablo plant, that it's a two-lane highway and it's also a huge recreational site and that there are at least five blind corners for even cars and bicycle riders. How are we going to mitigate safety for all of the above and then we add in trucks.

The other thing that I'm really concerned about is the whole social justice issue of where these materials might be transported, that the litigation for keeping people that are -- the marginalized communities where these materials are destined for, it's not just and I hope the community and the communities where this stuff is going, what get to be consulted. So thanks a lot for this conversation.

June 10, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. KINSINGER: Hi. My name is Debbie Kinsinger I'm a CEQA consultant from the San Diego area, most of my experience with forest service, fish and wildlife service and things like that.

I have a lot of questions about the interim consolidated storage idea. First of all, the one that's already been brought up about that there's no long-term site, and as far as I understood, that this wasn't an option until we had that that somebody else explained better.

So, second, when -- I think it was Rodney was explaining about the safety of the casks and about their transportability, and just from what I've been learning in San Diego with the casks that we have here, they're too long to be put on -- on a rail car and they're also too heavy for a rail to support. So when he talked about, you know, transporting these all the time, we've been doing it for years, to my knowledge, nothing like the type of casks that are going to be storing these fuels has ever been transported. And he talked about being able to demonstrate that they could be repackaged. To my knowledge, we don't know that they can be repackaged. We have an example of a cask that -- and how it could be used, but it's an example that doesn't have fuel in it and so many questions that when -- I've heard a couple of times people talk about this whole idea about interim storage and how we are going to move this material off site and I think that there's been some misrepresentation about what is possible to do based on what has been done. That's not consistent to what we're going to try and do.

So what has been done is low level transportation of low level, not high burn-up type of fuels, and in containers that are not heavy casks. Somebody said -- I thought there was something like 72,000 pounds per cask and I'm not sure that that's accurate. That's just something I remember off the top of my head, but anyway, there's so many questions and when I listen to Rodney speak, it sounds so great, wow, here's a great solution, but just what I have learned about this in the past is, one, that interim consolidated storage is not feasible and, two -- or it's not legal, and, two, that a lot of the things he said we've been doing and that it's -- that we're able to do is not -- we're not able to do those things with the type of casks that we have and the type of fuel that they are enclosing.· So --

ZEEK:· Excuse me.· Your two-minute time is up.

MS. KINSINGER: Thank you. I'm looking forward to scoping meetings where we can bring this up and hopefully make better choices.

June 10, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. WALKER: Great. This is Kalene Walker. I'm down in -- near San Onofre. I wish I had done the research or had the time and known about canister choices before I was made aware of the issue. I became aware of the issue when the canister of the whole system had already been purchased and so it's been an uphill battle ever since, if you followed any of the drama that unfolded there.

I'm curious why you have a four-year -- why the -- those recommendations for a four-year cooling time to get the fuel out of the pools. I think that's really an arbitrary requirement that really limits a very serious important option as far as your canister cask choice.

Donna Gilmore of San Onofre Safety came and spoke to your panel a couple years ago or whenever it was when some industry representatives presented to you and I think she outlined some fundamental differences and there's two different types of containers globally. Only two types of containers. There's thin wall canisters and thick wall casks. The thin wall canisters is what the industry is using and what the NRC is allowing. They're extremely substandard. They vent air. They cannot be stored in a building. The thick wall casks can be stored in a building away from all of the environmental hazards. It can be a harding building. They are much more protected. It's like not having a containment dome on a power plant. These things are sitting out in the open. There's all sorts of other things. These canisters, the NRC knows they are prone to corrosion and cracking. There's no way to inspect for corrosion cracking. Mr. McCollum from the NEI stated that the San Onofre had the gold standard of inspection repair because the Coastal Commission approved our supposed inspection repair plan to rationalize that the fuel was maintained in the transportable condition, but the –

ZEEK:· The two-minute time has passed.

MS. WALKER: Okay. Simply, the inspection is only a visual assessment. I would highly recommend you look up SanOnofreSafety.org and just do some research. This is like the -- in perpetuity is the operative word, and regardless of what happens with decommissioning, this fuel and how it's stored, and there's the need for repackaging, has not been factored in. I could go on and on. Thank you so much.

June 10, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. PULIDO: Thank you very much. I just have a couple questions and thank you so much for letting me participate. They're basic questions. Maybe you can help direct where they should be addressed, but I hear 250,000 years as far as a half life for the radiation and I'm hearing 80 years for the casks. I guess my
question is is that what provisions are being made for future contractors years and years down the road if they go bankrupt? And I'm speaking from the reference of oil facilities and oil wells where they're abandoned and bankrupt oil companies just walk away. I'd like to know is that something that's going to be addressed

And the second question I have is the current location, I understand additional casks are going to be put at that same pad, if you will, but what is the sea level of that and what studies have been done as far as a potential tsunami? I know there's been earthquake studies. Thank you very much.

June 10, 2021Lands

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. HAVLIK: Thank you, Mr. Anders. That's spelled N-E-I-L, H-A-V, like in Victor, L-I-K, and I am speaking to you tonight in my capacity as president of the Board of Directors of the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District. We are one of nearly 100 such agencies throughout the State of California. Our
district covers the area of San Luis Obispo County from Highway 41 in the north to the Santa Barbara County line on the south and from the coastline of the Pacific Ocean inland to the Los Padres National Forest, which, of course, includes the Diablo Canyon 12,000 acres. We offer engineering and natural resource advisory and management services to our interested publics. This includes civil engineering, not nuclear engineering, which we've been hearing about tonight, but civil engineering such as dealing with roads, water and stormwater conveyance, and water impoundments, including, but not limited to, stock water impoundments and containment structures. We also provide natural resource management and agricultural resource
management. These include things such as water quality, water conservation, erosion control and soil conservation, but very importantly, resource conservation districts are one of the natural conduits for the use of public money on private lands where those public monies have a public benefit and water quality and erosion control come immediately to mind and are common in the nexi. Is that the right word? Are common nexuses for the use of those funds. We just want to apprise the panel of this information and the services that our organization can provide We do have engineering expertise and natural resource expertise available to us and these can be applied to, really, any suitable portion of the Diablo Canyon lands, including the power plant site itself and the surrounding lands, and we would be delighted to be a participant in that. So I just ask that you keep us in mind as you move forward and we will be and will continue to be participants in this process as it moves forward. Thank you.

Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
June 10, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. SWANSON: Okay. So I'm Jane Swanson. I live in San Luis Obispo. I hope that is all I'm supposed to say about myself. So I'll keep it brief. First of all, I really want to compliment and thank very much the members of the Engagement Panel. This is volunteer work and the number of hours they put in are beyond my comprehension. I've attended almost all of the meetings over the years. I'm very impressed with them. So I want to thank the current, past and future members of the panel.

Secondly, I really want to second the suggestion of Linda Seeley that a workshop be held that includes Dr. Lam because we didn't get a chance to hear as much from him as he has to offer. Not just Dr. Lam, but also, you know, I would want PG&E and the county to be present at that meeting.· So that would be very valuable. I very much appreciated the workshops held in February of 2019 on the spent fuel storage. That was very hopefully, also.

And then a question, which might be answered at some other time, of Rod McCollum of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He was very optimistic and advocating of consolidated interim storage, but I am aware that that project violates federal law because federal law states that interim storage may not happen until and unless there is a permanent repository. So I'm quite mystified why there's this brouhaha about consolidated interim storage because I don't see any permanent repository on the horizon. So I just want to make sure everybody listening to this meeting is aware of the fact that consolidated interim storage in New Mexico and Texas is not a legal proposition. So I don't understand why that's even being put out there. So I'll let it go at that and let other people have their turn. Thank you.

June 3, 2021Community Outreach Process

I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you design this website
yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz answer back as I'm
looking to create my own blog and would like to find
out where u got this from. kudos

May 28, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

I look forward to wind and solar generation of energy becoming the truly renewable power source for the
Central Coast . When comparing nuclear generation with its aftermath of eternally toxic radioactive waste,
there's no contest.
There are over 80,000 tons of radioactive waste nationally and this amount will grow while these 93 active
nuclear plants make more day by day. Transporting it across the country to New Mexico and Texas is not the answer. The governors of these two states have written emphatically they don't want it. In fact, the State of
New Mexico has sued the NRC and the U.S Government for their failure to fulfill the mandates of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983.
Thirty Indigenous tribes have been directly affected by in situ mining and leaching of uranium to make
Yellow Cake for fuel in nuclear reactors. The immense amount of tailings left on or near reservations have
contaminated groundwater. There are 1,500 uranium mines in New Mexico alone -- one third of which have been abandoned. There is no disposal -- only displacement. Neighborhoods of people of color and the poor have historically been targets for toxic waste. CIS may not be "interim" but forever.
PG&E ratepayers have paid billions over 40 years for its waste storage. It's "our"waste because we have used the power it produced. Our billion dollar investment should be used to build the safest, most robust
casks, housing and siting that is monitorable, manageable and secure as close to its source as possible. MOVE IT ONCE to the final repository when it is established.
"We must do what's best for future generations."

May 28, 2021Water Resources

I sent an email on 4/24 inquiring about assessing the possibility of pumped storage hydro solution utilizing Lopez Lake Reservoir and the Diablo Canyon desalination plant. I have not received any response.

May 25, 2021Security

Dear Diablo Canyon Commission,

In light of the recent hacking of the South East US pipeline, what new security measures are you taking to prevent a ransom hack & shut down of the plant?

Sincerely,

JP Drayer
Cayucos

May 16, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

The Diablo site should become a wildlife sanctuary. Limit people to only those needed to safely decommission the nuclear plant. The site should remain ready to build a future nuclear plant in case one is needed in the future, but in the mean time the animals need a sanctuary,.

Retired (none)
May 12, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

After the units are defueled, will the Emergency Diesel Generators continue to be maintained as Tech Spec equipment, will the periodic surveillance intervals on the diesel generators and/or surveillance methodology change, will the switchyard arrangement change, will the number of in-service transmission lines to off-site power be permanently reduced, and until dry cask storage is completed, how will a power source be assured to the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System in the event of a Loss of Offsite Power, Station Blackout, or an un-postulated event?

none
April 22, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

I'd like to know if anyone has considered a Pumped Storage Hydro solution integrating the desalination plant at Diablo with Lopez Lake Reservoir?

There was a study conducted to deliver water from the desalination plant to customers along the Lopez Lake pipeline, which cited pumping costs as one of the technical hurdles and cost drivers for water delivery, though it did not explore the possibility of electricity generation and subsequent value add for both water customers, as well as a significant electrical generation and clean energy storage.
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Administrative-Office/Forms-Documents/Diablo-Canyon-Closure/Desalination-Project-Documents/Diablo-Canyon-Desalination-Pipeline-Feasibility-St.pdf

This Argonne National Lab publication PSH Valuation Guidebook included members of PG&E, so they are familiar with the technology and its benefits.
Levi Gilbert (Pacific Gas & Electric)
Edward Hansen (Pacific Gas & Electric)
Jay Mearns (Pacific Gas & Electric)
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/03/166807.pdf

And one of the major PSH programs completed in the US in 2020 was in California at Lake Hodges. Lake Hodges is 30k acre feet. Olivenham Dam is 24,000 acre feet. Lopez Lake Reservoir is approximately 50k acre feet.
https://www.sdcwa.org/projects-programs/facilities/lake-hodges/

March 18, 2021Other

You are perhaps aware of this latest series of studies and papers delivered by SCE (San Onofre) as a result of a lawsuit and settlement arising from their Coastal Development Permit case before the Coastal Commission some years ago. It outlines various strategies and options for accelerated removal of spent fuel from the San Onofre site including interim storage and a renewal of the federal attempt at a permanent, national repository. Nonetheless, and for those panel and community members who might not have been informed about this, I am sharing the link to the home page for the entire study (in three volumes):

https://www.songscommunity.com/strategic-plan-for-relocating-spent-fuel/spent-nuclear-fuel-solutions-a-fresh-approach

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
March 15, 2021Environmental Impacts

Decommissioning such an elegant carbon-free generating facility that would cost billions to replace in the middle of a climate crisis is nothing less than an environmental crime. You should seriously reflect if what you are doing is the best for 1) the global atmosphere 2) California 3) San Luis Obispo. As a Cal Poly graduate, I am truly dismayed at the utter ignorance that it takes to NOT do everything the extend the running of our beautiful treasure of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant.

If you are trying to hide behind the pale excuses of “safety” and “waste” then it shows nothing less than lazy tribal conformity and zero curiosity of actual evidence-based facts. Shame on you all!

March 10, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

The power plant shouldd be converted to a much needed marina, boatyard, and educational facility. The location is perfect for the following reasons. A break wall is already installed as is a boat launch ramp. Which could help with Coastal Commission approval. The location is between Morro Bay and Port San Luis. The new boatyard can service the commerical and recreational fleet of both harbors. This will provide much needed jobs and boost the local marine economy, which is struggling to put it lightly. A marina will encourage more local boating. This will lead to a demand for new boats, that can be built on site by a local boat builder. National boat companies will establish a dealerships. Boat Brokers will open up offices to supply the demand. This will provide revenue for the marine trades. A dedicated education center that teaches naval architecture, marine engineering, boat building, repair, and seamanship. A program like this would be welcome locally and heralded through out the state. The program can be either through Cuesta or Cal Poly. This is a plus for attracting much need blue collar and white collar jobs such as Naval Architects, Artisans, Educators, Craftsmen, Engineers, and Technicians. The new marina could be the home port for the fleet of the offshore wind farm. The commercial fisherman can have a place to haul out with qualified marine technicians and to moor their vessel in a safe location. The facility could house a storage facilty and a repair shop for commercial fishing equipment. A dry vessel storage building could be built and house small vessels creating another source of revenue and jobs. A vessel assist could be established. This would also provide a harbor of safe refuge for transiting vessels whether for mooring or repair purposes. The geographic location in itself would be the most unique marine facility in the state if not the country. This alone will bring in tourists and the money for the local economy. This idea will be the most successful and easily accomplished economically, environmentally, and geographically.

Avant Maritime Service
March 6, 2021Water Resources

Lopes lake is now less than 40% full and will be less than 30% full by the end of the year. Do we need to investigate the construction of a desalination plant at the Diablo location?

March 2, 2021Other

I would like to obtain more information regarding the possibility of joining the next term of panel members for the decommissioning planning activities. I am the CEO of a environmental consulting firm whose emphasis is on worker protection, HAZMAT remediation, geoscience and infection control. I have included links to our website and my online profile for your review. I am not a long time resident of SLO county, however I do own a home and reside in Cambria part time (I am part time every where as I travel for work quite a bit). My company was intricately involved in the over two year renovations project of the Neptune Pool at Hearst Castle, handling the environmental exposure risk mitigation portion of the project. I am greatly interested in the balance of decommissioning the power plant safely and effectively, minimizing the environmental impact of the process, as well as properly repurposing existing facilities and creating long lasting economic stability for local professionals and businesses impacted by the decommissioning of this facility. Please feel free to contact me at 714-334-9389.

February 23, 2021Economic Impacts

Decommissioning the Diablo Canyon power plant is a stupid idea.

February 18, 2021Lands

Greetings,

These are my recommendation for the repurposing of PG&E lands after decommissioning:

1. Extend Montana de Oro State Park south to the lighthouse and east to Perfumo Canyon and the town of Avila Beach.

2. Establish back-country hiking trails and hike-in/overnight campgrounds.

3. Extend Pecho Valley Road to the power plant access road, allowing tourist, campers and park users to drive and bike unobstructed through the park.

4. Have State Parks establish a kiosk at both entrances to the park to collect revenue to help maintain the park and roadway.

5. Build a coastal campground with hook-ups and tent sites.

6. Build a trail that becomes a section of the California Coastal Trail.

Thank you for your hard work,

Dale Kinney
Los Osos

Retired State Park Supervising Ranger
February 17, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

If you can cast out for deep water at the old nuclear power plant you should set it up for fishing and picnicking by the water.

February 15, 2021Water Resources

Will the desalination capabilities be retained and operational for community/regional distribution?

www.mbofw.com
February 12, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Convert the entire area into a Salt Water Desalinization Facility.
You of course would need to Demo most everything, but the Infrastructure (access roads etc) are all in place.
Great for the economy, in high paying on going careers.
Great for the environment. A small portion of fresh water produced can be diverted Aquafers, the majority to Homes and Agriculture.
Joy to The Fishes in the Deep Blue Sea.... Joy......
lol

December 8, 2020Water Resources

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. MILLER: Thank you. I just wanted to add a couple notes -- I'm sorry.· Eric Miller.· I'm actually a consultant with Miller Marine Science and Consulting. I've been working extensively in the seawater desalinization space, especially down here in Southern California. I just wanted to follow up with some of Mr. Juarez's comments and to some of the other questions I've heard.

He was correct in saying -- Mr. Juarez is correct in saying there have not been a -- there has not been a seawater desalinization plant that has been fully permitted under the ocean plan amendment that was adopted in 2015.· The closest was Carlsbad facility, but that had some special situations because it was an existing facility at the time.· It was more than 80 percent constructed by the time the new regulation was passed, but I did want to note I heard a couple of questions about the capacity of the facility and how much water would be available in relation to after the power plant did what it needed to maintain its operations through decommissioning.· There was one important point to keep in mind.· Desalinization of facilities can be expanded as is the case with the Charles Meyers facility in Santa Barbara.· That's one that's probably going to be expanded in the near future as additional local water districts choose to start taking water from that facility and I believe the same would occur here -- would be available here for the Diablo Canyon facility.· In the end, the critical items that are probably of most importance to consider when thinking about whether or not another entity such as the county to take over the operation and title, if you will, of the desalinization facility is more located in the existing infrastructure that's there that would not need to be replaced or created with a new facility, as well as the opportunity to utilize an existing MPDS permit through the Regional Water Board and build upon existing permitting rather than starting from ground zero.

So I think those are two couple very distinct advantages that this facility does present to the county if they are able to gather up additional partners to be involved in the project. That concludes my comment. Thank you.

Miller Marine Science and Consulting
December 8, 2020Water Resources

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. MILLER: I'd like to thank the panel and the presentations. I had one question that might be updated in the future on the desal and the large amount of water that's needed for decommissioning.· If the large buildings were repurposed such as the warehouse, admin building, training building, would the amount of water needed for decommissioning be reduced, and if so, by how much?· 25 percent, 50 percent, et cetera.

Another comment would be if desal is seemed to be viable going forward and those who are concerned about releasing brine to the ocean, I would think it is possible to send the brine to solar evaporation ponds. They originally got sea salt. And if I'm not mistaken, that's how Mahatma Gandhi broke the British empire in salt.· That's my comments.· Thank you very much.

December 8, 2020Water Resources

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. CHARTRAND:· Hello.· Thank you.· Thank you to the commission for your service and it's late so I'll try and keep it brief.

I'm Don Chartrand.· I live in Los Osos.· I'm the executive director of Creek Lands Conservation. Some of you may know us by our prior name, Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, and I mention that mainly because my comment tonight has to do with aqua culture, which is how we found our roots years ago growing salmon for fishermen.· Now we're more of a conservation group and in that capacity we are focused on a variety of different species important to the Central Coast.· My topic tonight focuses on abalone.· We're working with Noah Fisheries and the Nature Conservancy and Cal Poly to try and come up with a plan to save white abalone, which is an endangered species like black abalone. They're not native to the rocks in the near tidal in this immediate area, but the water is cold here and they live in deep cold water a little bit further south.· So the thought here is to use, you know, an idea to repurpose some of the infrastructure at Diablo Canyon for the purpose of what we're calling conservation aqua culture, which would be to raise large numbers of
immature organisms of a variety of types from shellfish to seaweed and maybe even fin fish of some type down the road for the purpose of rewilding California's coast that has been depleted by climate change and human use and disease like we've heard about from the black abalone.· So Conservation Aqua Culture is a use that has not been formally put forward to the decommissioning panel.· I just want to put on the record I think that would be a very interesting and use of the facilities at Parcel P. Thank you.

Creek Lands Conservation
December 8, 2020Water Resources

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. LUEKER:· Excellent.· Thank you.· Good evening.· Andrea Lueker.· I am the harbor manager at Port San Luis Harbor District.· A very interesting meeting this evening.· As you know, we're a very near neighbor to Diablo Canyon Power Plant.· Port San Luis is the largest special district in the county with our district boundaries including a large portion of the City of San Luis Obispo, south to the county line and deep into the eastern portion of our county. Property-wise, we have approximately 100 acres of land and we also have 8,400 acres of tidelands.· Those tidelands were granted to us by the state legislature in 1955.· The original goal of the Harbor District and our mission still today is to serve the public with an array of commercial and recreational boating, fishing and coastal-related opportunities while ensuring environmentally responsible, safe, well-managed harbor that preserves our marine heritage and character.

Since 1955, the harbor has been an exemplary steward of the state tidelands, as well as the other marine resources we have received.· This evening the panelists heard presentations regarding the marine resources, including the breakwater and marina at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.· Beginning in August 2018 and several times since then, the Harbor Commission has discussed their interest in Diablo Canyon and PG&E assets that have a nexus to the Harbor District operations, services and functions.· Related to th is evening's meeting, the marina, the breakwater, the adjacent infrastructure and the associated tidelands are all of significant interest to the Harbor District. Preliminarily, discussions with my board of commissioners for reuse and repurpose of these areas include, but are not limited to, the Harbor of Refuge For Mariners, Coast Guard Satellite Station, Slips and Transient Docs, Cooperative Programming with University of Research Organizations, Interpretive Center, boatyard, vessel storage, hoists, day use sailing.

The purpose of my public comment this evening is just to make sure that the harbor district -- to keep the harbor district's interest and intent in the forefront and to make sure that we're kept apprised and are aware and included in discussions and any decision-making during this complex decommissioning process.· Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening and have a good rest of your evening.

Port San Luis Harbor District
December 8, 2020Water Resources

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. DOWNING:· All right.· Thank you, everyone. Matt Downing.· I'm the community development director for the City of Pismo Beach.· I wanted to touch on a couple of things.· Thank you all very much for your time this evening.· The first, the desal -- idea for desal that was a great idea in 2015-'16.· Since that time, the City of Pismo Beach and our partner agencies have moved forward with the Central Coast Blue Project.· That will provide all the water that we need for south county.· So really the desal idea isn't totally necessary anymore. In terms of the marina, it would be a really unfortunate and costly thing to have that torn out.· Seeing that stay and turned into some kind of commercial marina use, maybe even looking at the long-term use of the land itself in terms of an eco tourism opportunity would be a fantastic opportunity, but whatever we look at in the future in terms of the land, one thing we wanted to keep in mind is that Avila Beach Drive is really the only way in and out of that area and I know that we are severely impacted by large events and large heavy uses specifically on Shell Beach Road in our community.· So just wanted to put those ideas out there.· Thank you all again for your time and I'll end it there.

City of Pismo Beach
December 8, 2020Other

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. WEISSMAN:· I don't see an unmute button here.· David Weissman, Alliance For Nuclear Responsibility, and in the short time since 9:00, last ten minutes, I'm frankly more confused on the chronology of what was simply a request for some additional information and questions I put in back on the 6th of July, which was over 90 days ago.· Mr. Jones says he admits there was some form of miscommunication.· What I know, as I heard Lauren Brown remark, that he had no idea about the questions that I'd asked regarding the future of rail transportation.· I got an email from Chuck Anders saying that PG&E has conducted an investigation and will be providing an update at the upcoming public engagement meeting on Wednesday, the 28th.· I didn't see that analysis or -- what's the phrase here -- an investigation tonight.· I didn't see it on the agenda, I didn't hear it, and then we do hear Kara saying that somehow they were informed about this at some point and, you know, I'm just confused about the chronology of who knew what and when.· All I know is you did receive it July 6th, you told me such, it was placed up on your comment bulletin board and I'd like to know exactly how many more days, week, months we'll have to wait to get an answer; although, again, according, Mr. Anders, to your thing, the email you sent me last week, PG&E has conducted and will address my concerns tonight.· So maybe you could straighten that out for me and just let me know when we can expect this.

Second thing, to the questions that Ms. Woodruff was asking recently of Maureen about knowing what PG&E's intents could be, might I remind the committee and the listeners her question is kind of valid because we don't actually know what corporation or company PG&E will be even five years from now when the plant ostensibly closes.· Remember, they've only just emerged from bankruptcy, but their securitization plan to finance to climb out of bankruptcy has not been approved by the Public Utilities Commission yet and there's no way of knowing that the potential for future catastrophic wildfires, the inability to ensure securitization or adequate funding or possible subsequent guilt in any of the current fires could drive them back into bankruptcy any time, one year, two years, four years from now.· So I think Ms. Woodruff's question is certainly well-placed in that no idea of knowing exactly what company this will be when the plant is ready to retire, and I will leave it at that.· Thank you very much.

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
December 4, 2020Safety

Dear Chuck and members of the DCDEP:

It appears that the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 main stator, barely one year old, has now failed for a third time after this recent attempted restart (this following a 46 day outage, which followed the 2 week outage back in July). Aside from any safety implications (and PG&E’s stated need for the replacement was to maintain safety) the troubling history of repeated failures of a new “replacement” part is reminiscent of the way the San Onofre nuclear plant’s history unfolded. In that instance, problems also emerged barely a year after the steam generators were replaced, and it was discovered that the flawed design and manufacturing process had created conditions of premature degradation. As full replacement (of the replacements) was deemed the only solution, SCE considered it too expensive and the plant was retired.

While we will need to await any full evaluation of the stator failures at Diablo Canyon, should a San Onofre style situation emerge, the County and the DCDEP may wish to remain cognizant of how this harbinger could alter the timeline for decommissioning and thus also the economic forecast and trajectory of the district in accelerating the closure of Diablo Canyon.

Kindly feel free to reach out to The Alliance with any questions or concerns.

Hoping that you and your staff are remaining well and healthy during this pandemic.

Yours truly,

DAVID WEISMAN

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
PO Box 1328
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 704-1810 cell
davidjayweisman@gmail.com
www.a4nr.org

SEE BELOW:

CA Current
Diablo Canyon Unit Down Again

3 Dec 2020

One of two main units at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is down for the third time. Soon after Unit 2 was restarted over the Thanksgiving weekend after a month-and-a-half long outage, Pacific Gas & Electric again had to take it offline. The problem continues to be with an electric generator component that was rebuilt last year.

“Operators have previously taken the unit offline twice this year to allow for needed maintenance on this component, which had been refurbished in 2019 and is located on the non-nuclear side of Unit 2,” PG&E stated the evening of Dec. 2.

After the 1,150 MW Unit 2 went back online on Sunday, Nov. 29, the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility questioned whether the second repair of a key electric generation component, known as a stator, would be lasting, or was a mere band-aid.

“Two days later, PG&E has apparently attempted to hose the stator down and its soggy band-aid sits on the floor in the shower,” David Weisman, Alliance spokesperson, told Current.

Ratepayers paid $100 million for the stator replacement.

What is the cause of the hydrogen leak, who pays for the repair, and whether there are plans for special monitoring to catch subsequent leaks, are among the Alliance’s questions.

PG&E did not respond to Current’s requests for answers to those queries.

Alliance’s request for ratepayer refund denied

The Alliance challenged PG&E’s request for full rate recovery of the replaced stator but was unsuccessful. On Thursday, state regulators approved raising PG&E revenue this year to $9.1 billion. Its decision included denying the organization’s recent request to return $12.5 million of the $100 million rebuild tab to ratepayers, though the commissioners may not have been aware of the third Unit 2 outage.

Diablo’s other operating unit, which was shut down for planned maintenance and refueling starting Oct. 3, resumed sending power to the grid Nov. 9.

The entire 2,200 MW nuclear plant was offline when the grid operator called for conservation on Oct. 15 because of spiking temperatures.

The Alliance has argued that electricity from Diablo has been significantly more expensive than other sources the last three years. It recently told the CPUC that in 2018, consumers paid $410 million extra for this above-market power, and that amount soared to nearly $1.3 billion this year. It estimated that ratepayers will have paid $5-6 billion in higher electricity costs by the time the two nuclear units are retired in 2025.

—Elizabeth McCarthy

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
November 26, 2020Other

I firmly believe that decommissioning Diablo Canyon NPP is a huge loss of a valuable electrical generation resource for the state of California! You've got a high producing electrical asset already in place in a state that is starving for reliable electrical power and you want to destroy it?!! What is wrong with your thinking? The only thing you have to fear is FEAR itself! (False Evidence Appearing Real) It would be such a shame and a colossal loss of a precious resource to California if this decommissiong process goes through! Shame on you! Shame on California for letting this happen!

Any pro-nuclear group!
November 9, 2020Water Resources

Email to Panel member Kara Woodruff from Troy Barnhart regarding the waverider buoy.

Dear Kara,

As suggested, I am writing to elaborate on my concerns for the fate of the Diablo Canyon waverider buoy.
As a bit of background about the buoy itself, PG&E installed the buoy in 1983 following the destructive 1982-1983 El Niño events. Data from the buoy is shared with the Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP) managed by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and available at https://cdip.ucsd.edu/themes/cdip?
pb=1&u2=s:076:st:1&d2=p9. CDIP is an extensive network of wave buoys and a premier source for metocean data. While possible PG&E originally installed
1. the buoy of its own volition to optimize operations at the Diablo Canyon plant , PG&E Engineer
Trevor Rebel indicated in the DCDEP meeting on November 28, 2020 that the buoy is currently
2. maintained as a licensing commitment to the NRC . In that presentation, Mr. Rebel indicated that
while maintenance of the buoy is relatively minimal, it would not be necessary to continue funding operation of the buoy if the breakwater remains in place.

Currently, the Diablo Canyon waverider buoy is the only active nearshore wave buoy between Monterey and the Los Angeles basin. Thus, this buoy in particular is an important data source for ongoing and future scientific, engineering, and planning efforts. I am concerned that if Diablo Canyon ceases generation and NRC permitting requirements subsequently loosen or expire, the buoy will be retired from service. As part of the decommissioning process, I believe it would be best to seek both a future owner/operator of the buoy such as Cal Poly or Scripps and a funding commitment for continued operations.

Feel free to contact me if you have further questions, or it may be of use to reach out to John Lindsey, a meteorologist with PG&E who is very familiar with the buoy and its data outputs.

Sincerely,

Troy Barnhart
troy.j.barnhart@gmail.com

1 http://cdip.ucsd.edu/dbase/web_stations/076/articles/20040217.html
2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1okDI_n3yPS5-1aRAMS7zHGn067ynz3go/view

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Does the brine rejoin the cooling water before or after the cooling process?

Response 1 - live answered

Response 2 - The brine comes back to the intake system in a pipe and is mixed before the water goes into the plant for cooling.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Thank you for this presentation. I'll ask something that has likely been asked before... but I want to know your thoughts. Has there been thought of a public-private partnership whereby a private entity runs/maintains the desal plant and builds some (or much) of the needed infrastructure, then benefits from charging agencies for the water provided? In the long term, this project seems like a valuable backup and supplement to the Central Coast Blue project. The price tag is likely prohibitive for our agencies alone after the significant investment in CC Blue.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Question for State Lands: Is there a cost /benefit analysis carried out during CEQA associated with the complete or partial removal of the breakwater? Will the large expenditure of energy be considered?

Response 1 - Under current plans, the County and not State Lands will be the Lead Agency for CEQA purposes. State Lands will act as a responsible agency and rely upon the County's CEQA document. Looking at CEQA generally, the analysis is required to look at environmental impacts and environmental benefits. Economic feasibility is also factored into the analysis, particularly related to mitigation. Energy consumption is also considered in CEQA analysis.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Fingers crossed for Cal Poly's use of the land! When will Cal Poly submit a proposal?

Response 1 - Great question, Lisa. The start of decommissioning is still some years away (2025) but Cal Poly is free to submit a proposal any time. We just need a leader from Cal Poly to step forward and embrace the vision.

Response 2 - Cal Poly has the process map for submitting proposal. PG&E has informed public and regulator how any proposal will be evaluated. That process is on the panel website.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Note that my abalone abundance question stems from conservation intent. I am happy to rescind my question considering the poaching risk to abalone.

Response 1 - Thank you

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

I wonder if there would be some way to limit public access to preserve those tide pools? It would be a shame to not be able to visit by appointment after some training on how to walk in tide pools.

Response 1 - if held either in private ownership or restricted access by a public agency that can be retained.

Response 2 - Thank you Ron — I agree; I think public access should be controlled/limited. There’s value in public access, but we will need good management and education. There are some hopes of a coastal trail along the bluffs, but the key may be in locating it far enough away from the coastline, so as to prevent tide pool trampling (and coastal erosion) - like what’s been done on the Point Buchon Trail.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Thank you for the great questions and comments from the panelists. South County residents are moving forward with recycled water and conservation alternatives. Surfrider Foundation supports those approaches instead of placing additional impacts of ocean outfall for brine disposal from ocean water desalination. Wouldn't it also make sense that the solution to the Diablo Lands water use would come through conservation and reclamation?

Response 1 - Thanks for you input, Brad. The Panel appreciates hearing from Surfrider.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

It seems that the breakwater is potentially beneficial for decommissioning, could be a future resource, and would be costly to remove. What arguments (if any) are there for removing the breakwater?

Response 1 - Thanks David — the Panel has sponsored a few meetings now and a workshop on the topic, and we haven’t heard any arguments for the removal, actually. The issue seems to be whether some entity will step forward with a vision for the repurposing of the breakwater. Absent that, the breakwater may have to be removed, per the statement made by Cheryl from the State Lands Commission tonight.

Response 2 - I concur with Kara’s answer. However, the base terms of the state lease require removal unless the state relieves PG&E of that obligation.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Just a comment – the “Desalination Amendment” to the Ocean Plan sets very high environmental protection bars for the design, operation, and mitigation of desalination intakes and discharges. It requires 1.0-mm mesh screens (to minimize entrainment of smaller non-swimming organisms) and enough screening area to ensure through-screen velocity does not exceed 0.5 ft/sec (to minimize impingement of larger organisms). CA is widely recognized for setting the highest bar in this regard.

Response 1 - you are correct. Mr. Juarez showed an example of this type of screen in his presentation.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

John Waddell, What are the possibilities for "water wheeling" going north to Whale Rock pipeline instead of south to Lopez system with desalinated water? Is going north a more efficient cost effective approach to delivering desal water to San Luis County?

Response 1 - Bill, The pipeline to the south was about 7 miles. The route to the north for interconnection was over 11 miles. If connected to south county system, they could wheel state water from southern customers and re-route using the method you suggest to central and north county. In essence, it was a county wide benefit if executed.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Like the Santa Barbara plant, I would assume the DCPP desalination plant could be expanded as needed. I believe the value in the existing plant is much of the infrastructure is existing already saving that construction costs as well as an existing permit that could be built upon to streamline the total permitting cost.

Response 1 - That is correct. The volumes analyzed were based on existing water volumes under current permitting.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Can brine be sent to an evaporation pond and products such as “sea salt” and precious metals sold?

Response 1 – live answered

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

DCPP is going to use most of the desal volume until ~2040 so it is not available to send to the County?

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Will an onsite wastewater treatment plant continue to operate in support of the ISFSI oversight staff? Would this plant circulate water to dilute the treatment plant effluent? If so, would that be available for brine dilution?

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

If buildings are repurposed, does the amount of water needed for decommissioning go down and if so by how much? 25 per cent, 50 per cent?

Response 1 - We do not know — depends on how the building is used. However, the buildings at Diablo are used as part of a 24-hour facility. Most uses would not be as impactful.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Thanks for the follow-up on the breakwater question. Wouldn’t removal require its own round of permitting and CEQA assessment? I would think that is an off-ramp to this expensive and potentially disruptive effort.

Response 1 - Yes. However, previous state rulings offer that the temporary impacts can be outweighed by the long-term benefit from removal to restore habitat.

November 2, 2020Water Resources

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Is it possible to leave the breakwater as is and let it be abandoned eventually without committing to keeping it in top shape?

Response 1 - yes — that can be considered if state lands commission were to approve that. It is not up to the lessee.

Response 2 - Thank you Jack. I think that outcome is preferred to removing it, and the Panel will consider addressing that in the next revision of its Strategic Vision.

DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)
Scroll to Top