Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel

Public Comments

DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)
September 14, 2020Spent Fuel Storage

Please see Appendix IV of the "Guidance on Implementing Sierra Club Policy on the Management of High-Level Nuclear Waste." It pertains to dry storage.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
September 5, 2020Spent Fuel Storage

My name is Michael Ratty. I am a retired engineer and have been a resident of rural Arroyo Grande for 40 years.
As we all know there are thousands of nuclear fuel assemblies at Diablo Canyon waiting for some kind of disposal method.
What was created in a nuclear reactor needs to be destroyed in a nuclear reactor.
Current reactor technology allows us to use the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) as fuel in a new reactor.
The reactor I am referring to is one of the Generation 4 reactors that specifically use a molten salt as fuel and for heat exchange. It is call a Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactor (MCSFR)
The existing SNF pellets are converted into a chloride salt and used as fuel in this type of reactor.
See Figure 1.
This process has been verified through a Department of Energy – GAIN Project at Idaho National Laboratories. See Figure 2
Once a 1.2 gigawatt electric reactor is started, it will use approximately one metric ton of SNF or approximately 2.5 fuel assemblies per year.
As you can see this is an extremely efficient process, actually to efficient to use all the SNF at Diablo Canyon in my grandchild’s life time.
If you want more information on the MCSFR, please refer to the following link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ou_xswB2b0
Thank you and please consider integrating this technology to eliminate the SNF at Diablo Canyon. Please contact me at advancednuclear6@gmail.com and let me know what you think.

None
August 20, 2020Repurposing of Facilities

Once again I failed to earn a position on the Engagement Panel. I continue to believe that the number one priority of the Panel needs to be encouraging California to extend the Diablo Canyon operating license. Recent "gaps" in the renewable portfolio prove the futility of attempting to depend on renewable (unreliable) wind and solar nuisance power to run a modern society.
Germany has proven that depending on wind and solar is a fool's errand. Their most recent folly is funding hydrogen technology to utilize "excess" off-peak generating capacity to manufacture a substitute transportation fuel. I credit Germany for recognizing that battery storage is now, and almost certainly will never be economically feasible. But turning to hydrogen, instead of abandoning renewables and keeping their nuclear plants online is economic suicide. Let's learn from Germany's "energiewende" mistake.

July 29, 2020Transportation Impacts

Email from David Weisman, Outreach Coordinator, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

Dear Mr. Anders and DCDEP members:

This recent event, https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/us/tempe-arizona-train-derailment/index.html is still under investigation. However, if it is proven that it was the bridge (allegedly recently inspected) that gave way first beneath the train leading to the derailment and fire, then it further underscores the need to remedy the deficiency my recent comments with regard to the Garrick transportation report highlight: Their risk analysis fails to look at the actual rail infrastructure along our coastal transport route and evaluate future predictions for its geologic stability, maintenance, and useful life.

Thank you for distributing this to the DCDEP members and for consideration of this information.

Yours truly,

DAVID WEISMAN
Outreach Coordinator

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

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
July 26, 2020Repurposing of Facilities

Right now Los Angeles is contracting with Mitsubishi to create the largest local hydrogen economy in the world. Hydrogen allows a portable, and highly dense storage fuel for multiple green energy sources.

The idea that Californians, who used to be the leaders of rational-progressivism is going to 'unplug' its largest single source of carbon-free 24/7 on-demand source of carbon-free energy is simply mind blowing.

This can only be the work of Gas and its co-opting of the California environmental thinking.

Make Diablo Canyon the largest source of Green Hydrogen in the world -- and you change the world to a lower resource footprint from all Mankind. This is no time for willful ignorance. Step up -- and Save Diablo Canyon.

July 24, 2020Environmental Impacts

Email from David Weisman, Outreach Coordinator, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

Dear Mr. Anders and Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel:

Attached please find a letter filed today with the State Water Resources Control board, captioned:

Request to sever the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant compliance date waiver from the Draft OTC Policy Amendment scheduled for consideration at the SWRCB September 1, 2020 meeting.

As noted in our letter,

A4NR was one of the co-sponsors of the 2016 Joint Proposal for the retirement of Diablo Canyon that is mentioned in the March 18, 2020 Draft Staff Report. Section 6.2 of the Joint Proposal addressed PG&E’s plan to request an amendment of the OTC Policy, noting that “The Parties will review the amendment request and reserve the right to oppose it or seek additional conditions.” Rather than uphold its contractual commitment to advance review and discussion by the Joint Proposal signatories, PG&E unilaterally dispatched its lobbyist to seek the Unit 2 compliance date extension

As neither the Alliance, nor any of the other co-signers we have contacted were notified of PG&E’s amendment request, we are unaware if PG&E has shared this situation with the DCDEP, whose mission very much includes consideration of this waiver, which affects the timing, scope and cost of the decommissioning project. We recall the previous incident that was brought to light by Alex Karlin of the DCDEP believing (or having been assured by PG&E) that it’s final report and recommendations would be made part of the official record in the CPUC NDCTP proceeding, only to discover that it was not. We wish not to believe that this important issue would have also passed unnoticed by the DCDEP, therefore seek your confirmation that this amendment request has already been shared with the DCDEP members. If not, we present our evaluation here with a request that our letter be distributed to the DCDEP membership.

All the documents referenced in our letter (including PG&E’s) can be found at: http://a4nr.org/?p=4311

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours truly,
DAVID WEISMAN
Outreach Coordinator

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

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
July 16, 2020Repurposing of Facilities

I think the area should be turned into a large solar array. The cables to send the power out is already there.

July 16, 2020Repurposing of Facilities

Why not convert to Low Temperature Plant? I’ve seed Bill & Melinda Gates funded research and seams the most logical use.

July 15, 2020Repurposing of Facilities

I would like to serve the decommissioning process. I have an idea about what the facilities could be used for that would keep the warm water ecology of the reef. I have a masters in Landscape Architecture and a vision of our local economy. I serve on the City of Goleta Design Review Board and the Santa Ynez Valley Botanical Gardens Board. I would be happy to stand on the committee but I dont see anywhere to submit my application on the website.

July 13, 2020Repurposing of Facilities

Would turning the facility into some kind of aquarium (eg. Monterey bay) be an option??

July 6, 2020Transportation Impacts

Dear Mr. Anders, DCDEP et al.,

Please see attached comments of A4NR regarding the analysis of rail transport for Diablo Canyon decommissioning waste as presented in the UCLA-Garrick report.

Yours truly,

DAVID WEISMAN
Outreach Coordinator

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
June 29, 2020Lands

The CA Coastal Commission provided comments for the June 24 2020 DCDEP Meeting on June 24, 2020, regarding Coastal Development Permits that PG&E will need to decommission Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The language provided in emails from CCC's Tom Luster are attached.

Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel member
June 24, 2020Environmental Impacts

When you wear a mask it makes it difficult for the audience at home to understand you. Perhaps just stay home so you can speak without a mask.
Why can I not comment on other concerns here?
I am against any route going through Montana de Oro State Park. Someone mentioned it is possible that some of that land is sacred Chumash property and may actually be returned to the Chumash in the future.
Besides that it will be devastating to those of us who love the park just the way it is.
I don't know enough about all those other forms of transport; it's complicated. Not sure I like the idea of putting any kind of nuclear waste in the ocean. One accident and I cannot imagine the amount of harm that would be done to the marine life, perhaps for decades.
The ocean is treasured and needs to be protected. Life springs from the ocean and we should never put it in harm's way.
Man has already done enough damage. Please don't risk more.
I am protesting that I cannot check off more than one category above.
I have lived here since 1971; took part in the anti-nuclear protests after Three Mile Island. That should have been enough warning. The plant should never have been built and certainly not on or near multiple earthquake faults.
Big mistake. Who pays for all this decommissioning?
The ratepayers I assume; we predicted that when it was built.

Vita Miller
1205 Bay Oaks Dr.
Los Osos, CA 93402
805-704-3173

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Hello Panelists:) This is Nicole Nix, District 3 Legislative Assistant. I don't have any questions yet, but wanted you to know I'm online watching and interested in your discussion on this important issue.

Spervisor Adam Hill's Office
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Public Comment: MR. WEISMAN: Good evening. David Weisman, Alliance For Nuclear Responsibility. In listening to your presentations tonight, particularly the ones from both UCLA and later the California Department of Transportation, correct me if I'm wrong, but in a large majority, regardless of the volume of material, that is to say the rubble, the construction material, the non-radioactive material for sure, anything that leaves on a truck and goes to the Pismo Beach rail yard then is placed on a train. We heard a lot about barges and the ·possibility today, we certainly heard about trucks and truck traffic, but I didn't hear anything or anyone speaking on behalf of the railroad. I know that the Caltrans has a department of rail and I would just suggest that this certainly is worthy of investigation 10 because the California Coastline Railroad, formally ·Southern Pacific, now Union Pacific, and I didn't hear a representative from the Union Pacific, would have to be amenable to carrying this large volume of waste when you consider that the Union Pacific abandoned the coastline for freight service two years ago. There were no longer any freight trains traveling between San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles or Long Beach, only the half a dozen Amtrak 18 trains a day, and the Union Pacific had even talked of abandoning this route. Now you're speaking of, as your ·calendar shows, a lot of this demolition material moving out in years like 2030, 2032, 2035, which is a long way from now, on a relatively narrow and potentially abandoned railroad, but the other reason the railroad was interested in considering abandoning the route is because in many places, due to coastal erosion, expensive abutments and restoration of sea walls would ·be necessary to keep the tracks from sliding into the ocean and here the discussion involves what will be potentially very heavy trains with large, long amounts of this heavy material. So I'm just wondering, especially to the UCLA researchers, I know you were looking at risks, but, of course, there would be the risks of remember we saw the Del Mar Bluffs collapse in the last rainy season. For the train, that would have been the one that is the same line that would carry the waste up from San Onofre had it gone a little further south.· So I'm just wondering where is the consideration of that factor and when we can look forward to seeing that.· Thank you very much.

Aliance for Nuclear Responsibility
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Thank you to all those in attendance for wearing your face coverings!

County of San Luis Obispo
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: We won't thanks for bringing that up. The details on the haul route is not clearly understood. Once the application for project is setup with the County, Caltrans will get involved.

Caltrans
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: 1- Large components should be considered for barge transport in addition to VLLW. In addition to reduced trucks this also greatly reduces the time and cost to size reduce these component to fit on trucks. Many plants have shipped their large components by barge. 2- If barging is not conducted, a 3rd lane on 101 from Avila to Pismo Beach rail. 3- use Tesla tractors to reduce carbon foot print. charge during the day with renewable electricity and drive at night. 4- Please correct error in Lind’s slide to replace “nuclear waste” with “radioactive waste “. LLW is not nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is only used fuel, HLW and TRU.

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: I hope future transportation analysis will consider the effects to Los Osos community at the same level of detail and sensitivity as provided tonight for Avila community.

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Don't forget the impact on HWY 101 and Price Canyon!

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Great session. Thanks.

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: I had the same idea that Linda ha about burying the low level waste onsite. With all the risks, expense and unknowns with barging, trucking, rail and transferring from one to the other -- burying onsite would be safer. and the GHG emissions are a concern also.

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Requirements for members?

Spervisor Adam Hill's Office
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Excellent meeting- lots of great discussion!

Spervisor Adam Hill's Office
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Will there be more information about panel membership?

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Hi, this is Doug Barker with State Parks. The San Luis Obispo Coast District of State Parks has jurisdiction over Montana de Oro SP. Our District has identified 3 issues of concern thus far: Recreational impacts to visitation, Facility impacts, mainly the wear and tear of the road, and public safety issues, mainly related to traffic control.

With regard to one particular public safety concern, please be aware that parts of the northern route through Montana de Oro State Park has ‚ bottle necks‚ where the distance between park visitors, their parked cars and the center line is approximately 40‚ 50 feet. Truck traffic will slow at these bottle necks as cars enter and exit parking spaces. So we are asking what impact will this have on the incidental public exposure calculations provided today? We will require a Right of Entry Permit with conditions and mitigation for impacts.

State Parks
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Thank you for all the details tonight! As a Pismo Beach resident, we are concerned with the use of the Pismo Yard. We also live less than 1/4 mile from the Yard and can see it from our house. As it is now, we hear lots of truck noise from the Yard since the sound travels throughout the canyon. We are concerned about noise, air quality, and decrease in property value.

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: We've heard concerns about the community of Avila and Los Osos. As a Pismo Resident, I want to challenge the board. I live less than a 1/4 mile from the Pismo Yard and I am very concerned with the noise, traffic and potential loss of property values due to the transportation and transfer of low level waste. I can literally see the Pismo Yard from my home. Has the impact to Pismo Beach residents been considered?

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Thank you all very much.

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Which parties can propose mitigation measures?

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Comment from panel website from Vita Miller (summarized): I am against any route going through Montana de Oro State Park. Someone mentioned it is possible that some of that land is sacred Chumash property and may actually be returned to the Chumash in the future. Besides that it will be devastating to those of us who love the park just the way it is.

I don't know enough about all those other forms of transport; it's complicated. Not sure I like the idea of putting any kind of nuclear waste in the ocean. One accident and I cannot imagine the amount of harm that would be done to the marine life, perhaps for decades.

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Thanks Nicole

DCDEP Member
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Thank you to the Panel, PG&E and all speakers!

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

From Linda Seeley to All panelists : I think that reading the final EIR for the Topaz solar plant will give us good ideas for mitigation.

DCDEP Member
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Or reading both the draft and the final EIR for Topaz will show us how things can be changed.

DCDEP Member
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: night…

County of San Luis Obispo
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Zoom Chat Comment: Trevor mentioned a train type that would not be discussed tonight. Is there a plan to discuss it in the future?

County of San Luis Obispo
June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

Public Comment: MS. JOHNSON: Hi. This is Kailie Johnson. I met you all last October at the public workshop where I presented my Cal Poly architecture thesis and it's nice to tune in again and hear your voices.· My question is also about the railway possibility and I see information, but looking at the northern route going through Montana de Oro, I was wondering what would be the condition for building either a road or railway because it's not connected right now between the plant and the state park and just thinking about what are the future possibilities if a road or railway has to be built there and could it be used for public use after the material is transported out?

June 23, 2020Transportation Impacts

See attached letter

SLOCOG
June 23, 2020Transportation Impacts

Please see attachment - Public Comment for the June 24, 2020 Decommissioning Meeting

Port San Luis Harbor District
June 22, 2020Transportation Impacts

How many shipments would be averted if the containment domes (after gutted and decontaminated) were left in place?There are many cathedrals and castles in Europe that are left in place as land markets.

June 11, 2020Lands

Please find attached the June 10, 2020 letter written by community members and others to PG&E and the CPUC regarding the conservation of and sustainable public access to the Diablo Canyon Lands. This letter was written in response to a query by the CPUC to PG&E dated June 1, 2020, also attached.

Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel member
June 8, 2020Other

Why is nothing mentioned about servicing the bonds sold to finance the water for this property?

April 14, 2020Decommissioning Funding

I al for the land lease protection of the spotted snowy owl wolves. call me at 702-301-9097 for all deatils.

April 8, 2020Other

An outstanding share! I've just forwarded this onto a friend who was doing a little research on this.
And he actually ordered me lunch due to the fact that I discovered it for
him... lol. So let me reword this.... Thank YOU for
the meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending time to talk about this matter here on your internet site.

April 6, 2020Transportation Impacts

Hello, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
When I look at your blog in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.
I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that,
amazing blog!

April 2, 2020Lands

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Comments on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Tribal Land Transfer Policy

The CPUC has recently enacted the Tribal Land Transfer Policy which allows tribes the right of first refusal to acquire any property transferred away from “investor owned facilities.” This includes Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and its Diablo Canyon Lands - as well as hundreds of thousands of other acres across the state. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace understands that the details and guidelines of this policy have not yet been adopted. Thus, we provide input.

Mothers for Peace supports the intent of the policy which is meant to mitigate historic misconduct. Our concern is how this policy may be implemented.
With the exception of sites located in densely populated urban areas, Mothers for Peace proposes that any land transfers occurring under the Tribal Land Transfer Policy or other entity must be accompanied by a conservation easement. We seek the conservation and protection of the land’s resources (ecological, cultural, scenic) as well as sustainable and permanent public access. 

San Luis Obispo County will be directly impacted by this new policy. In regards to the Diablo Canyon Lands, we advocate for a required conservation easement before any tribal land transfer occurs. This would reflect the DREAM initiative passed in the community in 2000 as well as years of community efforts to conserve those lands as reflected in the strategic vision adopted by the Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel.

Mothers for Peace additionally requests that the CPUC hold a workshop in San Luis Obispo specifically for the Diablo Lands AFTER the Coronavirus risk has passed and BEFORE the final policy guidelines are adopted.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
March 27, 2020Lands

Hello,

For the past four years I have worked as a Point Buchon trail manager. During that time I have had the pleasure and the privilege to witness the changes to the landscape and marine environment during each season as well as to witness the abundant wildlife each day. I could go on and on about the uniquely beautiful and relatively unspoiled habitat this four mile stretch of coastal bluffs, foothills and grassland terraces provide for people to enjoy hiking and important habitat for native wildlife.
So, I’ll get to my point. I strongly believe that the land occupied by the Point Buchon trail should continue in much the same way it has been since I have worked there - providing managed access for people to enjoy the bluff trail 4-5 days each week and, provide habit for the unique and varied flora and fauna.
I would be happy to speak with anyone from the panel regarding my experience, knowledge and perspective about the this amazing stretch of coastline - one of the most beautiful in the world!
Thank you for your thoughtful, forward thinking consideration.

March 25, 2020Lands

The CPUC should hold a workshop in San Luis Obispo specifically on the Diablo Canyon Lands (since we are directly impacted) after the Coronavirus risk has passed and before the new policy guidelines are adopted; and
Any land transfers occurring under the Tribal Land Transfer Policy must be accompanied by a conservation easement, to ensure the permanent conservation of the land’s resources and protection of sustainable public access.

March 24, 2020Lands

My comment concerns the new Tribal Land Policy as relates to Diablo Canyon lands

The very definition of which Native American groups qualify as stakeholders in this matter is also not clear to me. Are the members or leaders of such groups required to document their ancestry or historical connections to the lands? That would seem a difficult burden to meet, given the lack of record keeping at the time when these peoples were removed from their lands. On the other hand, it would seem appropriate to make sure that those claiming tribal status truly are representing the interests of such a people.

Given that plant closure will not be complete until the end of 2025, and that decommissioning will happen in stages over decades, there is no time pressure at present to make decisions regarding the adoption and application of the new policy. The CPUC should hold a workshop in San Luis Obispo County after the Coronavirus threat has passed and before the new policy guidelines are passed.

It will be important that any future land transfers be accompanied by a conservation easement, to ensure the permanent conservation of the land’s resources and the protection of sustainable public access.

I urge the DCDEP to follow this process within the CPUC closely, and to assert itself into the hearing process as appropriate.

L. Jane Swanson
janeslo@icloud.com

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