Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel

Public Comments

DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)Uploaded File 1Uploaded File 2
January 15, 2023Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The DCDEP “public” meeting of December 14 was a betrayal of the public trust by PG&E. Unlike prior meetings, the public had no opportunity to ask questions or express opinions during the meeting. And it had nothing to do with decommissioning, which is the purpose for which the Panel was formed. Below in quotes is the PURPOSE as posted on the DCDEP website.

“The DCDEP was convened by PG&E as a volunteer, non-regulatory body created to foster and encourage open communication, public involvement and education on DCPP decommissioning plans and activities.
It is intended to serve as a forum for the local community to provide direct input to PG&E, regulatory agencies and the local community on matters related to DCPP decommissioning, including land use and repurposing of facilities recommendations.
The DCDEP functions solely in an informational and advisory capacity. The meetings and workshops held by the DCDEP allow local community members to provide direct input to PG&E, and subject matter experts to provide information to the Panel and the public about DCPP decommissioning.
Final decisions regarding DCPP decommissioning will be made by PG&E in conjunction with the appropriate regulatory agencies.”

The reader will note that the majority of the purpose of the Engagement Panel was contradicted, indeed turned on its head.

The meeting topic, far from being about decommissioning, was about prolonging the operations of the two reactors at Diablo Canyon. To add insult to injury, PG&E refers to SB 846 which attempts to set the conditions for a five-year extension of the plant’s life, while PG&E blatantly applies to the NRC for a 20 year license renewal, the only length of time for which the NRC issues operating licenses.

Given that the public was muzzled during the entire meeting, it certainly did not fulfill the goals of providing direct input, public involvement or even information about decommissioning.
The definition of a forum is “a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.” This was no forum; it was an attempt by PG&E to justify its treacherous reversal of its 2016 commitment to shut down the reactors at the end of their current operating licenses. It was a failed attempt at public relations by PG&E.

Mothers for Peace and the general public have much reason to be skeptical of the “subject matter expert”, to quote a term used in the first sentence of the PURPOSE, presenting testimony at this meeting. Dr. Robert Budnitz, Chair of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee, contradicted his statements at prior public meetings of the DCISC.

On June 22, 2022, he stated, “If the decision were made to extend the license, there would be a LOT of work to do in many, many different areas. It’s barely feasible...because so many programs and projects and so on have been put into place during the past few years predicated on that closure in 2024-2025.” He also stated that extending the life of Diablo presented safety problems. “It’s not only a real problem, it’s a real safety concern. This is going to be a tough technical challenge.”

But at the December 14, 2022 meeting of the DCDEP, Dr. Budnitz sounded more like a public relations employee of PG&E than an “independent” expert. He stated, “We don't know of anything important in which the maintenance change has been a compromise of safety that wasn't accepted. We just don't know that and we don't think we miss anything. [The] Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a maintenance rule and they enforce it and they haven't seen anything either. Now, crucially, there's an important distinction here. … they did defer some capital projects. Several of those back in 2016.”

Dr. Budnitz spent several minutes praising PG&E and reassuring the public that everything will be taken care of and everything will be safe at Diablo Canyon if PG&E secures a renewed license for the plant.

What led to the turnaround in Dr. Budnitz’s opinion over six months’ time? Had PG&E suddenly completed all the deferred maintenance, or is it possible that Dr. Budnitz is not as independent as he claims to be?

Just last week, the public was informed of a crack in a weld causing a leak in the Unit 2 reactor coolant system that was discovered in October 2022 and reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 2022. SLOMFP wonders:
• When was the affected weld last inspected?
• When does PG&E believe the crack in the weld formed?
• Why had the weld flaw not been identified earlier?
• What was the size of the leak when it occurred?
PG&E claims that the presumed cause was fatigue, which was caused by vibrations in the reactor vessel, indicating a weld defect.

Leaks in reactor vessels can lead to serious dangers.

The residents of San Luis Obispo County deserve to know exactly how many capital investment projects and maintenance projects have been deferred or scrubbed since the agreement to shut down Diablo Canyon in 2024-25 was reached eight years ago. Was the faulty weld leak a result of neglected inspections or deferred maintenance? How frequently do serious problems go unnoticed?

The volunteer members of the Engagement Panel, appointed by PG&E, are doing their best to learn about and to advise PG&E on community needs and concerns related to the decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon plant. All meetings of the Decommissioning Engagement Panel should pertain to this topic. If PG&E wants to address the opposite topic of why and how it intends to continue operations, thereby delaying decommissioning for between five and twenty years, the company should hold a news conference on that separate topic. It appears to SLOMFP that members of the Panel were disingenuously used by PG&E to lend credence to the company’s plans to keep Diablo open, rather than to honor its commitments made in the Joint Proposal of 2016.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
January 9, 2023Panel Website

I visited the DCDEP website to look for the maps that were attached to the Strategic Vision, and none of the maps are there! Where did they go?

DCDEP
December 15, 2022Other

There is supposedly a list being developed of deferred maintenance projects and the associated estimated costs. Who is participating in the compilation of this list? When will it be available to the public? Who will oversee these projects?
There is much controversy over the seismic safety of Diablo Canyon. What agency(ies) is/are responsible for the independent analysis of seismic dangers? How and when will the public be informed of the findings?
Explain the plans for how the high level radioactive waste will be stored as a result of the proposed extended operation. How will the fuel pools and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation be managed?
SB 846 allows 5 years of extended operation. But the 2018 agreement to shutter the reactors in 2024 and 2025, signed and approved by the CPUC and the NRC, was ignored and reversed. What assurance does the public have that the plant would operate for 5 additional years and no more?
Meeting Details

PG&E’s Summary of SB 846 and the status of activities relating to extended operation need more enforcement of laws

December 15, 2022Other

SB 846 allows 5 years of extended operation. But the 2018 agreement to shutter the reactors in 2024 and 2025, signed and approved by the CPUC and the NRC, was ignored and reversed. What assurance does the public have that the plant would operate for 5 additional years and no more?
This is a legal matter

December 15, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Dr. Budnitz gave his expert opinions on maintenance and staffing of Diablo, saying that there had been no compromises made, despite the about-face from maintaining the plant through 2025 and plans to keep it running for an additional 5 to 20 years. I'm sure he is correct, that PG&E made sure to meet all requirements of the NRC.

But there are other experts who see things differently than the federal agency. The NRC's obligation is to provide for "adequate" public safety and to support nuclear facilities at the same time as it regulates. Some experts have higher standards for the provision of safety for both the public and those who work at the plant. Of course, such experts with opinions different from those of PG&E, the NRC, and the DCISC will not be heard at Engagement Panel public meetings, given that PG&E funds and is in charge of these meetings.

The experts with more critical views include but are not limited to Michael Peck, former NRC Senior Resident Inspector (See attached); Sam Blakeslee and Dan Hirsch, who testified before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works ( see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA6eXzQJugY); Arnie Gundersen (See https://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/arnie-gundersen-fairewinds-associates-testimony-to-the-cpuc-31-1-17).

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaceindex.php?gf-download=2022%2F12%2F091514-Peck-response-to-NRC-copy.pdf&form-id=2&field-id=10&hash=d71846671cb2ee7c8b693a7a308743defcd002bff4dcc8ac1952bebb21590b0f
December 15, 2022Community Outreach Process

The following comments reflect my observations of the Dec. 14, 2025 meeting of the Engagement Panel. PG&E presented its current plans and actions related to the potential for continued operations of Diablo after the Aug. 2025 date that PG&E had previously committed to for shut down.

1. Many acronyms were used both verbally and on the PG&E slides. It would help the general public understand the presentation if those acronyms were spelled out both verbally and on the slides.

2. Likewise with identification of the speakers. Sometimes the speaker had a name plate that was visible, sometimes the speaker was introduced verbally, but at times only by first name. I suggest the speaker's names and positions always be visible. Is this person a member of the panel, a PG&E employee, a representative of a state agency or an outside consultant?

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
December 14, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

As a concerned Californian and a member of the public attending this meeting, I must share how disheartening it was to witness your closed-loop presentations with self-congratulatory air, even as one presenter admitted his key report due tomorrow, December 15th, will be late and that he will submit soon "in a couple of weeks." Is there a penalty for late reports? Does a new due date need to be offered?

Over the years the public has watched PG&E and allies submitting key reports late as a typical tactic when opposed. In this instance, report tardiness severely limits those who oppose this extension, especially by failing to provide timely, critical information, along with another deflection, failing to answer or even address key questions.

The public wishes to experience a professional and level-playing-field opportunity to participate in this important process of decommissioning Diablo. We are invested too. This panel offered no open discussion or input from the public despite your mechanism for us to make comments and ask questions beforehand.

WHEN will any of those 47 groups who are involved and it seems pushing for this extension become OPEN to questions, comments and directions from the public? Despite what your charters may say, the public is entitled to our voices being heard resulting in a timely opportunities for public input and direction.

Peace!

Allison Center for Peace
December 14, 2022Other

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"comment on recent FISION at Lawence Livermore Lab"

December 14, 2022Safety

It seems PG&E has a history of consistently placing profits over people, environment, maintenance, or accountability. Conveniently declaring bankruptcy to escape accountability for the preventable disasters and death they have caused in the last decade. It is my understanding that PG&E owns the land and the reason the plant was decommissioned in the first place was they were unwilling to spend the money for the environmental retrofit of the ocean water intake system. Are they going to be responsible for any of the safety measures pertaining to the operations, maintenance of the facility, or transport of product associated with the extension of operations? Are they going to be in control of any of the grant money designated for the retrofit and if so who will provide oversight of those funds allocation?

December 14, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

If the plant is reinstated what is the plan moving forward for spent fuel storage?

December 14, 2022Lands

According to an MIT and Stanford report that was published in Nov 2021, clearly laid out challenges the remote facility and landscape posed to the development of a desalination facility. Making it not entirely cost effective logistically but also there could be lack of demand from surrounding communities for the water. Are there other proposals besides a mega desalination facility or green hydrogen production plant?

December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

How long will it take to safely retrofit and bring the facility and operations online and will that exceed the proposed extension?

December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

As a member of the Engagement Panel, I have reviewed the comments made by members of the public (as of 11 AM this morning on 12/14/22) and have also received informal comments from others in the community. I'd summarize the key issues/questions raised in those comments as follows, with the hopes that representatives from PG&E, the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee, and/or the California Energy Commission can address them at tonight's meeting:

1. What time period will PG&E seek in its license to extend DCPP operations? SB 846 calls for a 5-year extension of DCPP, while operators of other nuclear plants have generally applied for 20-year extensions. When the NRC was in town this year, they told a community group that the extension requests can be made for up to 20 years, but that an operator can apply for shorter license period. What will PG&E do?

2. Will the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee (DCISC) prepare a list of deferred maintenance items needed to extend DCPP operations beyond 2025? Is that list complete? When it is, will that be publicly available? Related, SB 846 contains a covenant that PG&E commission an independent study to catalog and evaluate deferred maintenance. When will that study be completed and will that be publicly available?

3. Under SB 846, PG&E was given a $1.4 billion loan. Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded PG&E $1.1 billion dollars in funding, which seems to leave a $300 million gap. Who will pay for that? SB846 prohibits that coming from ratepayers, right? If so, who pays?

4. SB 846 contemplates the provision of community impact funds and workforce training. How does that work? When and how will those funds be distributed?

5. Many questions have been raised about the (complex) seismic condition at Diablo Canyon and SB 846 requires PG&E to "conduct an updated seismic assessment." How will this covenant be implemented? Who will oversee or review the PG&E assessments? Will independent, third-party peer review be involved?

6. Is the existing dry cask storage site for spent nuclear fuel (i.e., the ISFSI) be big enough itself (not including the spent fuel pools) to hold ALL spent fuel generated from day 1 of DCPP operations through 2030? If so, what changes need to be made to the proposed Orano system to make this work? And if not, where would a new ISFSI be placed?

7. Has PG&E procured sufficient uranium supplies to enable continued DCPP operations through 2030?

8. BOEM has just completed the sale of three leases for offshore wind operations in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area. How will the development and implementation of those offshore wind farms proceed, in light of DCPP continued operations, energy transmission to the grid, construction of proposed port(s), and eventual decommissioning activities -- especially given the expected reliance on barging in the removal of decommissioning debris from the DCPP site?

DCDEP member
December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

We have reviewed the agenda for the upcoming DCDEP meeting (12/14/22) and noticed that there is time allotted for panel questions, but not for public questions. The presumed rationale for the DCDEP’s involvement is the announced discussion of the “implications on decommissioning activities, such as, repurposing, land use, and environmental permitting.”

A4NR would appreciate panel members asking PG&E the following questions:
(1) Is PG&E going to apply to the NRC for a 5-year license extension, or a 20-year extension?

(2) Using the numbers in the DOE conditional award, when will the State General Fund get paid back for the $1.4 billion loan?

(3) What is the interest rate on the loan?

(4) Is the $75 million PG&E received to put Diablo Canyon into the Reliability Reserve subject to repayment?

(5) Does the $1.4 billion loan amount include a budget for another round of community impact payments to schools and local governments? How much?

(6) Does the $1.4 billion loan amount include a budget for another round of retention payments to assure the continued availability of a well-trained workforce? How much? (7) How does the $1.4 billion loan get paid back if there are no operating losses and, consequently, no funding received from the DOE grant?

The responses to these questions are important to our community and PG&E ratepayers, as well as state taxpayers, and we request that the panel ask these questions of PG&E. Thank you.

A4NR
December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"S.B. 846 authorizes a 5 year license renewal, until 2030. The NRC does not give 5 year renewals, only 20 years. PG&E is applying for the 20 license renewal. Am I correct that PG&E at this time is not making any commitments or promises to cease operations in 2030? If so, what is the probability that PG&E will keep its commitment? We have noticed that PG&E did NOT keep its commitment made in the Joint Proposal to withdraw its LRA "with prejudice", and that it abandoned the commitment to shut down in 2025 with no apology."

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

This question would be for CEC Vice Chair Gunda, I believe: SB 846 created Public Resources Code Section 25233, which requires the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission to, by no later than December 15, 2022 (tomorrow), submit a Joint Reliability Planning Assessment to the Legislature (and then quarterly thereafter). When and where will this report be made available for public review?

December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"In favor of the continuing operation of the plant"

December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

1) Is there a cap on the amount of money the government will give to PG&E i.e. will more public money be made given to PG&E if the $1.4 billion is not sufficient to bring the plant up to operating condition?

2) Is there a guarantee that when this five year extension ends that there will not be another five year extension?

December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"No waiver of any inspections or regulations related to current conditions of plant and presently know environmental factors esp earthquake faults should be allowed. All public safety measures must be taken re production and storage of nuclear waste."

December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"At last week's session with staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there seemed to be quite a bit of ambiguity about the duration of the relicensing period sought, and reference was made to precedent from the procedure with Indian Point. We need clarity about exactly what this precedent is, how PG&E expects to use that precedent, and whether they intend to return to the California Legislature to realign the SB 846 duration with that in their federal application."

December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"Can Diablo Canyon be shut down for the safety of the community and wildlife? Who is on the committee & overseeing the list of deferred maintenance projects & the associated estimated costs? When will this information be published?"

CleanEarth4Kids.org
December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"How come PG&E and the NRC seem to be so cavalier about the more recent seismic data showing that the faults offshore may well be connected and may be more capable of a serious earthquake which could damage various safety systems that are critical even after a shutdown?"

December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"where will the spent fuel be stored ?"

land heritage
December 14, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"I am wondering if the public will be informed of the 20 year required NRC licensing period before Diablo Canyon is approved for extended operation. Will PG&E be required to warn the public that no permanent nuclear waste site exists, i.e., no solution exists for long term storage of high level nuclear waste. Will the public be notified if high level nuclear waste casks are transported along rail and highway routes near their vicinity?"

December 12, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"Anxious to see what action will be taken to protect and preserve our central coast. What will we do for the future? How do we justify or explain that the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant was allowed to operate and leave present and future (unborn) generations with deadly nuclear waste that will be deadly for thousands of years."

December 12, 2022Safety

My understanding is Unit 1 at Diablo was designed and constructed with a different material specification which some critics have suggested makes it more vulnerable to potential weld embrittlement. I understand that design specification was changed with the construction of Unit 2. With the Diablo Independent Safety Committee looking into this potential embrittlement issue, the possibility exists that one reactor may be found acceptable for extended life and the other less so, if not irreparably compromised. Can Dr. Budnitz comment on that aspect of the review path? For PGE: What would be the decommissioning path if one reactor is found beyond repair for safe operation or requires significant repair before continuing operation? Is there a bifurcated path of ongoing operation for one and some level of decommissioning for the other?

December 12, 2022Safety

This is a comment a received from a member for the public. I'm hoping some of this can be addressed on Wednesday:

SB846 includes contingencies that could put a halt to extended operations and restore the 2024/2025 retirement dates. The law is 31 pages of dense language, and includes provisions /scenarios where state agencies, including the CEC and the CPUC, may find that the state’s energy reliability needs will not be served by extended operations, or that extended operations are too costly. It’s important that these contingencies be highlighted at the meeting, and I did not see them adequately addressed in the PGE slideshow linked at the DCDEP website. Perhaps the CEC representative could address how the public can monitor and participate in CEC/CPUC SB846-related evaluations of need for, and cost of, extended operations.

Panel Member
December 10, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"Safety is my number one concern. Explain what measures PG&E is taking regarding retaining experienced staff, deterioration of nuclear power plant, potential earthquakes. "

December 9, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"I want to understand the term "forgivable loan" with regard to the $1.4 billion given to PG&E to extend
their operating license. This will come from the California State General Fund. Won't this amount really be paid by ratepayers and taxpayers?"

December 9, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

1- the impact that the extended operation will have on the proposed Offshore Wind Farm, for which 3 leases were recently granted. At least one of the awardees commented that the availability of transmission infrastructures played a role in their bid (that is, the Diablo Canyon infrastructure), but this will not be available if the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant continues to operate. How is PG&E addressing this?

2- with chronic water shortages in SLO County being the new reality, the decommissioning of the power plant offered new hope that its on-site desalination plant might be re-purposed to supply the community, perhaps in conjunction with the new offshore wind farms. What are PG&E's long term goals with respect to this desalination plant? (Note: although the desal plant operation is sub-leased, it is clear that PG&E exerts significant control over all aspects of this facility)

December 7, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"Would love to discuss mechanisms for how to extend operations even further."

Mothers For Nuclear
December 7, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"Please update us regarding the status of the NRC relicensing process for DCPP. Please also clarify the role of and any open requirements of the Region 3 California State Water Resources Control Board, the California Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission, the California Energy Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. What is the status of new fuel procurement and new spent nuclear fuel canister procurement? Is PG&E having success in its recruitment project for staff augmentation? Please clarify the status and projected length of the DCPP refueling outages between now and the commencement of Extended Operations?"

Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc.
December 7, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"Is it anticipated that there will be a change in spent fuel encasement?"

December 7, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

1. Unit 1 is only 2 years from license expiration. Does PG&E have enough time to go thru. the NRC's relicensing process?

2. If eventually the relicensing is not approved by the NRC or any State Regulator such as the Coastal Commission, will the federal government still pay for all the expenses incurred by PG&E in the relicensing process?

December 7, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The following comment was received while registering for the December 14, 2022 Engagement Panel meeting:

"We strongly support continuing operations at Diablo Canyon and are interested in learning more about the process of assuring safety."

Al Pie Del Cielo Farm & Vineyard
December 5, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

I am completely opposed to an extension of Diablo power nuclear plant expiration date....I live less than a n 10 miles away...this nuclear plant has been sitting on our local earth q uake fault for 40 years

December 5, 2022Other

Wikipedia definition of micro reactor to accompany my last question.

A nuclear microreactor is a plug-and-play type of nuclear reactor which can be easily assembled and transported by road, rail or air.[1] Microreactors are 100 to 1,000 times smaller than conventional nuclear reactors, and when compared with small modular reactors (SMRs), their capacity is between 1 to 20 megawatts whereas SMRs comes in the range from 20 to 300 megawatts.[2] Due to their size, they can be deployed to locations such as isolated military bases or communities affected by natural disasters. They are designed to provide resilient, non-carbon emitting, and independent power in challenging environments.[3] The nuclear fuel source for the majority of the designs is "High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium", or HALEU.[4]

December 5, 2022Other

have trailer mounted micro reactors been considered for operation at Diablo when they become available?

paying PG&E to continue operation at Diablo Canyon it's ridiculous you're a profit engine and the people of California should not fund your stockholders profits.

assuming that California will move forward with billion dollar bonus payment to PG&E would you be willing to open your personal records and provide bonus and incentive money Payments Transactions to employees over the next 10 years as a condition of accepting the funds?

Along with complete accounting of how the money was spent.

Please send me a copy of your answer to my email

December 2, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

By what process did the DCDEP make the decision to exclude public comment at the December 14, 2022 public meeting?

November 30, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

As a lifelong resident of the Central Coast here in California, and having moved around the state for work during my career, I see how absolutely desperate we are for a renewable, clean, safe form of energy is to our state. I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is that we not only extend the closure of this power plant, but make it permanent and in fact, expand operations either locally or by building additional renewable Energy in nuclear power plants throughout California. Safety first though! It can be done safely and in a cost effective manner. Additionally, the financial impact to the loss of well-paying employment opportunities has and will continue to negatively affect the Central Coast so as a secondary point I am in strong support of maintaining this facility as an open, operational and safe facility.

Long Time Central Coast Resident
November 29, 2022Safety

In the past I understood that Diablo wasn't up to current earthquake standards. As a local resident this is very concerning. Will there be any additional work/conditions made to address seismic needs BEFORE any final approval to extend the life of the plant?

November 29, 2022Repurposing of Facilities

Harmony Coast Aquaculture Institute is a nonprofit committed to developing sustainable land-based marine aquaculture methods. We have acquired the former Abalone Farm in Cayucos for this purpose, and we wish to consider whether PG&E is open to the possibility of diverting a small amount of seawater from the DCPP pumping infrastructure for similar activities that would be adjacent to but would not affect power production. We are bringing this forward now to introduce the concept while the initiative to extend power generation is being discussed. Our hope is that PG&E would be open to finding ways to generate power while continuing to divest land and finding more efficient use of the existing infrastructure.

The idea is that a portion of DCPP's pumped seawater could be diverted into aquaculture tanks to grow certain species of native California seaweed and shellfish. The tanks we have in mind are similar in size to some that are already in use at the desalination facility. Doing so would yield multiple benefits, including beneficial changes to the coastal marine environment, and a way to positively engage with cultural and social matters that have long attended the presence of the nuclear power operation. Our question: would PG&E consider a proposal from HCAI to utilize some seawater and currently unused real estate adjacent to DCPP?

Whether or not the time is now to engage with PG&E on this matter, HCAI has recently acquired the former Abalone Farm in Cayucos. At full capacity, the HCAI Cayucos facility will be the largest such land-based aquaculture facility in the country. What we have in mind for DCPP mirrors what we are beginning to do at the Cayucos facility, at a fraction of the scale that is possible on the Pecho Coast at Parcel P. We just secured the Cayucos facility last month, so we have plenty to do. Our intention is to make the world better, so identifying places to scale up our vision where there is already a seawater intake and space to operate is key.

Harmony Coast Aquaculture Institute
November 29, 2022Safety

It is pure foolishness to continue operating Diablo which contributes less than 9% of the states’ energy. There is still an earthquake fault to deal with, plus aged structures and equipment. I wonder how many young nuclear physicists are still in California ? I realize no one wants an accident, but extending operation of this very old facility is asking for trouble. Who is liable is there is an accident? The state, this commission, or PG&E?

November 9, 2022Other

The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility filed comments on the first workshop on the future of Diablo Canyon held by the California Energy Commission on October 28, 2022. This starts the process of determining how much energy California will need in the coming years and whether or not Diablo is a reliable and affordable solution should it merit consideration.

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibilityindex.php?gf-download=2022%2F11%2F110822-DCNPP-Extension-A4NR-Comments-on-CEC-102822-workshop.pdf&form-id=2&field-id=10&hash=80646b5119326fbd64d1e46a3c7648962069ccd25e71308eaf1686bd0309cb73
October 31, 2022Other

PG&E NEGLIGENCE CAUSED 149.2 DAYS OF 2020-2021 FORCED OUTAGES AT DIABLO CANYON;
COMPANY SHOULDN’T RECOVER $178.6 MILLION FROM CUSTOMERS FOR ITS OWN FAILURES
see attached press release

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibilityindex.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2F103122-A4NR-ERRA-Testimony-PR.pdf&form-id=2&field-id=10&hash=ecdb1f2922faca9531d0da1e51dda859746a5a6b36a75a39245ae0fe36245995
October 14, 2022Environmental Impacts

To my mind, Climate Change so vastly outweighs any of the other factors involved here. Whether or not nuclear power is "renewable" is a meaningless red herring at this juncture. That is a concern to address only after we have actually averted causing our own extinction. Nuclear power is carbon-free, utterly, and is the best solution we have to meet our energy needs without contributing to climate change.

And if we're being honest, the vast majority of people who have been in the past "opposed to nuclear power", or still are, have everything to do with irrational fear of the technology itself, not dissimilar from people afraid to use modern air travel for example. That isn't how we should be making choices as a society. And the small minority of actually valid concerns all pale in comparison to the global reckoning with greenhouse gas emissions we are already experiencing, which will only get vastly worse with time. At a time when there are still plenty of coal plants in this country, and installing all the massive new infrastructure, power storage capacity, and wind turbines etc themselves is no carbon-free activity... it simply appears to be utter madness to not make use of a large source of carbon-free power which already exists, and which has nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

We do not have the luxury of choosing only ideal options right now, we are in a fight for the survival of our species, and most others on the planet as well. And we certainly do not have the luxury to indulge outright irrational public fears based on ignorance.

lifelong resident of SLO county
August 26, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

I attended last night's meeting by phone and thought I had raised my hand, but I was not called, or misunderstood my number due to being hard of hearing.

I want to add my voice opposing extension of the operating license of the aging plant. Even if there were no safety issues due to seismic concerns, deferred maintenance, etc., its continued operation gets in the way of incorporating renewable sources of energy due to its high, constant output.

It was my understanding from the hearing by CEC that the grid is only challenged beyond its capacity for a few hours a day a few days a year (admittedly likely to increase as a result of global warming). It seems like, if there were the political will, that shortfall could be filled with storage, including from electric cars, and evolving technologies like green hydrogen fuel cells. And conservation efforts have reportedly saved twice the energy predicted in one program and its potential, I feel, is vastly underestimated.

When the offshore wind project comes online and is incorporated in to the Diablo grid, total demand will likely not exceed production very often. Since Diablo power cannot be reduced, that means solar and wind will need to moderate, producing lower revenues for companies trying to put clean, non-nuclear-waste-producing power into the lines.

There needs to be less effort made to protect utility profits and focus on building out more solar rooftops, local micro-grids and conserving energy with heat pumps and other energy saving strategies, especially incorporated in to new building construction.

Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse
August 26, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Script of comments read at the August 24, 2022 public meeting

DCDEP Panelistindex.php?gf-download=2022%2F08%2FAdditionalIssuesWithDCPPextension-8-24scriptRev5.docx&form-id=2&field-id=10&hash=64da610799aa5713d80ac24e2636b92dd47bbf894fb9c7b1105cb1190a5d35f5
August 26, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

The attached are personal comments I made in the introduction to the Panel Meeting. They are my own reflections from the last weeks of discussion and do not reflect a Panel position, as there is no Panel position.

Panel memberindex.php?gf-download=2022%2F08%2FML-continuation-comments-082422.pdf&form-id=2&field-id=10&hash=a3f940c8deab111af4fde7a74ac0e47bb1dcfff18334d8fd99beef440d2bca7b
August 26, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Please find attached comments by DCDEP Member Kara Woodruff at the Engagement Panel Meeting on August 24, 2022.

DCDEPindex.php?gf-download=2022%2F08%2FKara-Woodruff-Comments-DCDEP-Meeting-August-24-2022.pdf&form-id=2&field-id=10&hash=18ca7592f540711c00630c4b979e2b09668d5de92dea16f15a1584d98e8af42a
DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)Uploaded File 1Uploaded File 2
Scroll to Top