Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel

Public Comments

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

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:

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:

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:

What is the current estimate of black abalone present in the same area that historically showed 9000? Also, are there current estimates of red abalone?

Response 1 - Thanks for your other question.

Response 2 - TENERA should have the accurate data, but I believe that prior to “The withering foot syndrome”. where 90 percent of the black abalone were impacted, within Diablo Cove (which had approximately 800 meters of suitable habitat) the counts were over 2000 black abalone.

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:

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:

The waverider buoy is one of the few offshore wave monitoring installations in this area of the coast. Is there potential to have Cal Poly or another insititution, for example, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, take over upkeep of the buoy? Perhaps PG&E could commit to continued funding for this?

Response 1 - That is unlikely, PG&E only funds items directly related to utility operations. A successor could take over the asset subject to state approval. Any transfer of assets requires approval from the CA Public Utilities Commission via a filing known as an 851. Utility applies to the CPUC to seek approval to divest the asset. Further, the bouy is subejct to lease from state lands commission.

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:

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

October 30, 2020Economic Impacts

I'm new to the site, so please pardon my ignorance, but does PG&E have any community economic development plans to help mitigate the impact of closing Diablo Canyon on the local/regional economy?

October 28, 2020Repurposing of Facilities

I work with CCT Technology. We have developed a unique thermal energy storage system. It can store energy produced by any source of renewable or other energy at 1.2 MWh per unit (easily scalable).
Its advantages include:
20-year lifespan
70% cost of other storage over 10-years
Low carbon footprint in production and in operation.
High energy density at 5X Li-Ion.
Fewer moving parts for low maintenance.
Uses recycled material (e.g. old solar panels) not mined material and is fully recyclable.
Does not de-rate with charge/discharge cycles.
Simultaneous loading and unloading at unlimited speeds.
Delivers peak hour storage and consumption peak hour unloading within one device.
Holds charge for 8 days and does more than just store energy (Provides electricity, heat, cooling, hydrogen (by more than one process), and subsequent hot desalinated water and then reprocesses it for re-storage, Waste/Organic material critical gasification, and more).
Could produce desalinated water and store energy with one system versus two systems. Diablo Canyon could be continually utilized as an energy producing site with wind, solar or both, with storage of energy for off peak hours and still produce water the area is dependent on (and potentially increase supply). The small footprint could be stored in the existing facilities and others in the energy collection field. The green hydrogen produced could power vehicles for the state or run emergency power systems during disasters.

I can explain what the technologies are in more detail either by phone or email or send additional information. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

CCT Technology
October 21, 2020Safety

Please see attached news story published by California Currents on October 20, 2020

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
September 28, 2020Other

Email Submitted to Chuck Anders, DCDEP Facilitator

Dear Chuck:

Here is a link to the latest opinion editorial of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility now appearing in the Santa Barbara Independent. As we have always kept the DCDEP appraised of statewide energy issues in regard to Diablo Canyon, we wanted to pass this along. Please feel free to share with the DCDEP membership.

https://www.independent.com/2020/09/24/all-about-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant/

Kindly feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

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
September 25, 2020Other

Is there a function in this website which allows for an automatic notice via email or text re: time/date upcoming meetings?

Tom Marré
Tommarre@gmail.com
9.29.2020

Self
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: Excellent meeting- lots of great discussion!

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

Zoom Chat Comment: Thank you all very much.

June 24, 2020Transportation Impacts

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

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

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 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: Great session. Thanks.

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