Due to the increased electric power demand supplied by sources which burn fossil fuels, shutting down Diablo Canyon would necessarily result in a net increase in carbon emissions. I recognize the scope of this panel may well be limited to what impact decommissioning will have on the environment starting from a point where said decommissioning is a foregone certainty. However, it seems like this is relevant, nonetheless. I also recognize that calculating the full environmental impact of carbon emissions resulting from the loss of Diablo Canyon's capacity would be difficult. So all I suggest is that in addition to, say, analyzing for the possibility that the breakwater area be turned into a marina, you could also include *some* analysis of the effects which will result from increased greenhouse gases, too, to give decision-makers a bigger picture.

Public comment presented during the August 9, 2023 Engagement Panel Meeting:

DAVID WEISSMAN:· GOOD EVENING.· DAVID WEISSMAN,
ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY.
· · · · · NEW YORK, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, AND VERMONT
HAVE EACH REQUIRED RADIATION CLEAN UP OF DECOMMISSIONED
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TO ACHIEVE A 10 MILLI-REM PER YEAR
RATHER THAN RELY ON THE NRC'S DEFAULT STANDARD OF 25
MILLI-REM OF RESIDUAL RADIATION.
· · · · · PG&E HAS REFUSED TO EXPLAIN WHY IT BELIEVES
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT EXPECT THE SAME LEVEL OF
PROTECTION OVER THE ONE-THOUSAND-YEAR PERIOD USED IN
CALCULATING THOSE RATES.· THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10
MILLI-REMS AND 25 MILLI-REMS BECOMES A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF RADIATION.
· · · · · PG&E HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF DIABLO CANYON PARK'S 50 OPERATING
LICENSES, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL HAVE JURISDICTION
OVER THE SITE CONDITIONS, AND THE RADIATION CLEANUP THAT
WOULD BE REQUIRED IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION.
· · · · · PG&E TOLD THE CPUC UNDER OATH THAT IT IS,
QUOTE, VERY LIKELY, END QUOTE, THAT THE DIABLO CANYON
SITE WILL BE REMEDIATED TO A LEVEL BELOW 25 MILLI-REM
WITH NO ADDITIONAL COST TO CUSTOMERS, BUT IT REFUSES TO
BE HELD TO A SPECIFIC TARGET BELOW 25 MILLI-REMS.
· · · · · NOBLE INTENTIONS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR
RIGOROUS AND ENFORCEABLE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.· AFTER
SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE, PG&E ACHIEVED A
POST-DECOMMISSIONING LEVEL OF 6 MILLI-REMS AT THE
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT.· PG&E HAS REFUSED TO EXPLAIN
WHY THE RESIDENTS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO THE SAME LEVEL OF EFFORT IN RADIATION

CLEANUP THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE RESIDENTS OF
HUMBOLDT COUNTY.
· · · · · AND FINALLY, THE CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT, NUCLEAR
PLANT, IN FLORIDA, IS UNDERGOING DECOMMISSIONING NOW AND
WILL BE USING THE DEFAULT NRC 25 MILLI-REM RADIATION
CLEANUP LEVEL.
· · · · · OUR GOVERNOR NEWSOM HAS TOURED THE NATION AND
FLORIDA, BOASTING CALIFORNIA'S RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS AND LEADERSHIP, AND YET, CALIFORNIA
DECOMMISSIONING REACTOR SITES ARE SLATED TO BE LEFT NO
CLEANER THAN THE ONES IN FLORIDA.· WOULD GOVERNOR NEWSOM
REALLY EMBRACE THE SAME APPROACH TO NUCLEAR CLEANUP AS
GOVERNOR DESANTIS?· THAT SHOULD BE AN INTERESTING
DEBATE.
· · · · · THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Public comment presented during the August 9, 2023 Engagement Panel Meeting:

JILL ZAMEK:· HI.· I'M JILL ZAMEK.· Z-A-M-E-K. I
LIVE IN ARROYO GRANDE.· CLEARLY, THE DECOMMISSIONING AND
DISMANTLING OF DIABLO CANYON WILL CREATE SIGNIFICANT AND
DISTURBING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN THE OCEAN, ON THE
LAND, AND IN THE AIR.· BUT SO DOES CONTINUED OPERATION
WITH THE ADDED RISK OF A CATASTROPHIC RADIOLOGICAL
RELEASE.· I DON'T SEE ANY BENEFIT IN DELAYING THE
INEVITABLE DECONSTRUCTION, AND I SUPPORT DECOMMISSIONING
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WITH NO EXTENDED OPERATIONS. I
ADVOCATE FOR THE GREATEST CARE IN THE STORAGE AND
TRANSPORT OF RADIOLOGICAL MATERIALS.· MITIGATION
TECHNIQUES WHEN DEMOLISHING THE OCEAN STRUCTURES AND THE
MORE STRINGENT REMEDIATION THRESHOLD OF 10 MILLI-REMS A
YEAR RATHER THAN THE 25 THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED.
· · · · · I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT A MINOR ERROR
IN APPENDIX G1-1.· THERE'S A REFERENCE TO UNITS 2 AND 3,
WHICH SHOULD READ UNITS 1 AND 2.· THANK YOU.

Public comment presented during the August 9, 2023 Engagement Panel Meeting:

BETTY WINHOLDS:· MY NAME IS BETTY WINHOLDS.· I'M
FROM MORRO BAY.· I'M JUST A PRIVATE CITIZEN WHO SAT
THROUGH THE VERY LONG PRESENTATION.· IT'S SO TRAUMATIC
TO HEAR ABOUT ALL OF THE IMPACTS THAT WILL NOT BE
MITIGATED OR NOT MITIGATED WELL.· BUT I AM CONCERNED, AS
I ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, ABOUT THE RADIATION, AND THE
COMMENTS THAT WERE SPOKEN EARLIER BY THE EARLIER
SPEAKERS IN TERMS OF WHETHER TO GO WITH THE 25 OR THE
10.· I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT YOU -- SINCE MY TESTIMONY,
WHICH I DID NOT KNOW WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT THIS
EVENING AND PASSED ON TO THE EIR, I HOPE THAT YOURS WILL
BE AND THAT YOU WILL RECOMMEND THAT EITHER SENATOR LAIRD
OR THE LEGISLATURE OR THE GOVERNOR REQUIRE THE 10
THROUGH LEGISLATION OR THAT PG&E PICK UP THE MANTLE AND
DO THE RIGHT THING AND VOLUNTARILY GIVE THEMSELVES THE
LIMIT OF THE 10.· TO NOT DO SO IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THOSE
OF US WHO LIVE HERE.· THANK YOU.

Public comment presented during the August 9, 2023 Engagement Panel Meeting:

CARL WURTZ:· THANK YOU, CHUCK.· I'M CARL WURTZ IN
BURBANK, REPRESENTING FISSIONTRANSITION.· AN EARLIER
COMMENTER ASKED INNOCENTLY WHETHER OR NOT CLOSING DIABLO
CANYON WAS A THING.· I WANTED TO LET HIM KNOW THAT, YES,
IN FACT, NOT CLOSING DIABLO IS A THING.
· · · · · SPECIFICALLY, ON SUSAN'S SLIDE OF POSSIBLE
ALTERNATIVES, THERE WAS A NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE THAT
WASN'T ADDRESSED.· AS ADVOCATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND
SUPPORTERS OF CONTINUED OPERATION OF DIABLO CANYON,
FISH'N TRANSMISSION WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COUNTY AND
OTHER AGENCIES THAT EVALUATION OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS A
REQUIREMENT OF ANY EIR UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.· THAT IF THE PLANT IS
PERMANENTLY DECOMMISSIONED, WHAT THE RESULTING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WOULD BE, INCLUDING ANY IMPACTS ON
CO2 EMISSIONS.
· · · · · GIVEN THE SHUTDOWNS OF SAN ONOFRE AND IN NEW
YORK AND OTHERS HAVE RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES
IN CO2 EMISSIONS, ANY FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE MANDATORY
NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE AND
UNLAWFUL UNDER THE TERMS OF CEQA.

Public comment presented during the August 9, 2023 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MARTY BROWN:· MY NAME IS MARTY BROWN, AND I'VE
LIVED IN ATASCADERO SINCE 1972.· IF DECOMMISSIONING
TAKES PLACE AS AGREED UPON IN 2018, IT WILL TAKE 14
YEARS TO DISMANTLE, DEMOLISH, DECONTAMINATE, AND RESTORE
THE PLANT PROPERTY.
· · · · · WHY HAS THE NRC OR THE CPUC NOT REQUIRED THE
SAME LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR RESIDUAL RADIATION AS
REQUIRED IN FOUR OTHER REACTOR STATES?· WE MUST DEMAND
THAT HIGHER STANDARD.
· · · · · ACCORDING TO PG&E, THIS REMEDIATION CAN BE
DONE WITHOUT ADDING TO THE COST.· MY CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE PAYING FOR THIS, AND IF THIS
EXTENSION GOES THROUGH, THAT WILL RAISE THE COSTS AND
RISKS EXPONENTIALLY.
· · · · · AND I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.· HAS THERE
BEEN A PERMANENT REPOSITORY FOR THE HIGH-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE?· IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF
TRUCKING GOING ON.· IT SEEMS LIKE THE WASTE IS GOING TO
BE STRANDED HERE, AND IT'S A RADIOLOGICAL HAZARD THAT
WILL BE OUR LEGACY FOR CENTURIES.· THE VALUE OF HEALTH
AND OUR ENVIRONMENT IS PRICELESS.· SO STOP THE EXTENSION
AND CONTINUE DECOMMISSIONING THAT PG&E HAS ALREADY
BEGUN.· THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

Public comment presented during the August 9, 2023 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MY NAME IS MONA TUCKER.· I'M THE CHAIR OF THE
YAK TITYU TITYU YAK TILHINI NORTHERN CHUMASH TRIBE WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AND REGION, AND I'M A RESIDENT OF
ARROYO GRANDE.
· · · · · THANK YOU TO THE EIR TEAM FOR THEIR WORK AND
TO THE ENGAGEMENT PANEL FOR TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION. I
AM A MEMBER OF, AND I REPRESENT FAMILIES WHO ARE THE
DOCUMENTED DESCENDENTS OF THE VILLAGES OF THE COAST.
THE VILLAGES THERE ARE OUR VILLAGES.· THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
BURIED THERE ARE OUR RELATIVES, AND WITHOUT THEM, WE
DON'T EXIST.
· · · · · MY POINT TONIGHT THOUGH, IS THAT I WANT TO
BRING ATTENTION TO THE SLIDE DISCUSSION THAT STATED THAT
THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF CULTURAL TRIBAL
RESOURCES THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED.· I AGREE WITH THAT.
· · · · · BUT THEN THERE WAS ALSO A BRIEF MENTION OF
VARIOUS ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE REGARDING THESE
IMPACTS TO CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES.· BUT THE
IMPORTANT POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE TO EVERYONE
LISTENING TONIGHT SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO
MISUNDERSTANDING THAT A MONITORING PLAN AND MONITORING
ACTIVITIES ARE NOT MITIGATION.
· · · · · SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MENTION TONIGHT.
THE IMPACTS TO CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES CANNOT BE
MITIGATED.· THANK YOU FOR THIS TIME.

Public comment presented during the August 9, 2023 Engagement Panel Meeting:

ROCHELLE BECKER:· YES.· THIS IS ROCHELLE BECKER OF
THE ALLIANCE -- (CONTINUED INAUDIBLE.)
· · · · · I KNOW THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE
10 MILLI-REMS STANDARDS TONIGHT AND THAT YOU HAVE A VERY
LARGE EIR TO READ, BUT I ASK THIS COMMITTEE READ THE
DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE FILED AT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION AS PARTICIPANTS IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION'S CASE ON DIABLO CANYON.· THEY HAVE LEGAL
CITATIONS TO THE 10 MILLI-REMS STANDARD, AND IT WOULD
BEHOOVE THIS COMMITTEE TO READ OUR DOCUMENT, WHICH IS
MUCH SMALLER THAN THE EIR, AND I THINK YOU WOULD LEARN A
GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE STANDARDS AND WHY THEY WERE
SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED BY FOUR OTHER STATES IN THIS
COUNTRY.

I would like to voice my concerns about decommissioning Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. In light of the powe it produces cleanly,and the amount which is significant,in my opinion it should remain open and in use. California's power grid hasn't been sufficiently updated as with brown outs and outages to supply our present needs nor will solar and wind reliably be able to in the future. Also the desalination plant is necessary for San Luis Obispo city and county use. There's safe and reliable reuse of waste and disposal without harm to the environment,endangered birds,and sea life. Please keep it operational.

Is the DEP going to produce a Video of the May 3rd Meeting ?
Please respond.

What is your plan if the grid goes down for an extensive period of time, due to an EMP attack by Russia or China? What assumptions about the grid are you making in your assessment? There is some likelihood that if this occurs, the land around this plant, the wildlife, and the humans living nearby, possibly many miles away, will be harmed or killed if this contingency occurs. You owe the public answers, including how long you assume the supporting grid will be down if there is an EMP attack. Extending the life of this plant may look like a solution for the problem of an “unreliable” grid, but if this type of attack occurs, one will quickly realize the magnitude and scope of the error in that decision.

Do not decommission. Keep it running and built a nuclear powered desal plant at the site.

Please see attached letter from Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility to the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee regarding lapses in oversight by that committee.

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.

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

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).

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!

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?

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?

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?

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."

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

"In favor of the continuing operation of the plant"

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."

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?"

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

"where will the spent fuel be stored ?"