Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel

Public Comments

DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)Uploaded File 1Uploaded File 2
August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Please extend DCPP operations by 10+ years, it’s the only ethical and logical thing to do in face of power shortages, climate change and conserving the environment.

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

To Whom It May Concern:

Too much effort has been spent on plans for decommissioning to simply turn around and decide that the plant has more years in it. There are numerous reasons that the plant should be decommissioned: Safety of the aging plant components and spent fuel storage, to name a few.

Susan Biesek

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations


I am a French-American deeply concerned by climate change and misinformation. California is not sparred by climate change, our hydro-power supplies are not performing well, forcing us to build new gas power plants (420gCO2eq/kWh LCA for the most efficient, over 600gCO2eq/kWh for peaker plants). Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest energy source (around 10gCO2eq/kWh for a plant like Diablo Canyon) that we have today. Nuclear power is a great ally to renewables, because renewables do not generate power on-demand and electricity is extremely difficult to store. Closing Diablo Canyon is a complete non-sense on every point: safety, reliability, costs, decarbonization.

Today, I would like to address the origins of the anti-nuclear movement and empathize with it, and provide some perspective to people who are afraid of both the problem of climate change, and one small part of the solution: nuclear power to generate electricity and safely burn down nuclear weapons.

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

I am opposed to the extension and urge your committee to stay the course on your decommissioning work. The facility is an aged-out, poorly maintained nuclear plant. To operate beyond 2025 would require exorbitantly expensive repairs as well as the added costs of ever-mounting radioactive waste. And decommissioning will be vastly more expensive the longer it is postponed. The costs and risks increase each day Diablo is allowed to remain operating. As everybody should know by now, nuclear power is not safe, it's not clean, and it's not cheap. Instead of wasting even more money and time on Diablo, real clean technology--solar, storage, wind--needs to ramp up immediately. Please continue your committee's vitally important work to help complete decommissioning on schedule.

Mary Jones
Santa Barbara

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

I am opposed to the extension and urge your committee to stay the course on your decommissioning work. The facility is an aged-out, poorly maintained nuclear plant. To operate beyond 2025 would require exorbitantly expensive repairs as well as the added costs of ever-mounting radioactive waste. And decommissioning will be vastly more expensive the longer it is postponed. The costs and risks increase each day Diablo is allowed to remain operating. As everybody should know by now, nuclear power is not safe, it's not clean, and it's not cheap. Instead of wasting even more money and time on Diablo, real clean technology--solar, storage, wind--needs to ramp up immediately. Please continue your committee's vitally important work to help complete decommissioning on schedule.

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

I live in Oceano, 5 miles downwind from Diablo Canyon, and am opposed to any extension of its operating permit--for ALL of the reasons that have been documented in all previous hearings, including the one tonight.


Charles Varni

Chair oceano Advisory Council
August 24, 2022Repurposing of Facilities

I strongly oppose extending the operation of these two nuclear reactors beyond 2024 and 2025. A great deal of work has gone into preparations for these shutdowns and they must go ahead.

The lands on which the reactors sit should be returned, in large part and with their input, to indigenous people from whom they were stolen.

The longer the reactors operate the more radioactive spent fuel will be generated. We don’t know what to do with what is already there.

Once-through cooling destroys ocean life, the basis of life on Earth.

The reactors are on top of a network of earthquake faults. Earth is geologically dynamic. It is impossible to scientifically prove, for all time, that Diablo is “safe.”

Infrastructure at the plant should be repurposed for a wind farm.

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Dear Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel,
It is critical that Diablo Canyon be shut down as scheduled by 2025. The agreement to shut the plan must be honored for all the stakeholders who participated in making the agreement. Much thought, work and energy went into the agreement, and the arguments put forth for violating it, though perhaps well-meaning, are fallacious.
There are many reasons and issues that make the shut-down critical, any one of which is sufficient for rejecting the proposed extension. Among them are the following:
1. Multiple earthquake faults nearby make the plant dangerously vulnerable to damage and disastrous radiation leaks.
2. Deferred maintenance, including lack of inspection of critical welds in the reactors, creates an extremely dangerous situation for this embrittled and aged plant.
3. The closure agreement must not and need not be violated in light of the ability of the state to provide sufficient energy via existing resources, conservation of energy, and development and bringing online of alternative energy sources.
4. The once-through cooling system is unlawful.
5. It will cost PG&E, and thus the ratepayers, billions to continue operations. Any financial expenditures should instead be applied to development and distribution of clean, renewal energy systems.
6. The issue of radioactive waste storage is critical. There is not capacity for storage of high level radioactive waste beyond 2025.

While I reside in the SF Bay Area, not near the plant, I'm concerned for the safety and economic health of all California. California's economy will be ruined, and the lives of millions living downwind from the plant, including the populations of Santa Barbara and Los Angeles, will suffer devastating consequences if Diablo Canyon were to have an accident. Radiation travels in the air, water and soil, and thus all parts of the state as well as the Western United States will be harmed.
Please do not agree to extending the operation of Diablo Canyon.
Thank you.
Cynthia Papermaster, Berkeley, California

Codepink Women for Peace
August 24, 2022Safety

Seldom do we dwell on many lethal risks that we have grown to endure on a daily basis. We are grateful that for nearly its entire licensed period of 40 years PG&E and Diablo Canyon has served us in relative safety.
Attached are some of the logical economic, scientific, environmental, energy efficiency reasons clearly supporting PG&E’ s efforts since 2020 to decommission Diablo Canyon.


August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Another voice on the history of NRC decisions of acceptable risk concerning seismic safety from the Union of Concerned scientists:

August 24, 2022Other

Please see attached an UPDATED brief with an expanded introduction and a link at the bottom above the references to very helpful supplemental data and analysis.

SLO Climate CoalitionPathway-to-a-Clean-and-Reliable-Grid-without-Diablo-Canyon-220824.pdf
August 24, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Of the many concerns facing the potential extension of Diablo Canyon, the most glaring is the issue of the spent fuel storage. Currently there is no destination for the excess waste created past the 2025 deadline. Where will the extra waste go? Who will protect the local communities from the hazards of this waste while we figure out a storage solution? If construction is made, what local ecosystems and environments would have to be demolished to make room? What is the justification for perpetuating this toxic energy generation when it carries so many risks?
To elucidate on a few other concerns, what is the plan to mitigate against the already-diagnosed seismic risks, one of the contributing factors towards the decision to decommission initially. Why are we acting as though these risks have diminished because of Newsom's sudden concern we won't have enough energy to make it through warming summers, despite the rapid development of solar and other renewables that is on track to replace Diablo as planed?
The hypocrisy and inconsistencies are abundant and the lack of transparency regarding Newsom's sudden about-face on Diablo and PG&E insinuates there is more to the effort to keep Diablo online than fear of a future blackout.

Samuel Lawrence Foundation
August 24, 2022Environmental Impacts

Dear Sirs and Madams,
Many years ago, while pursuing my degree in biology, I had a textbook that showed fault lines off the coast in the area of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The fault lines were more numerous than could be counted. How this plant ever got the 'okay' to be built in the first place, in this area, is beyond me. It is every bit as dangerous to those of us who live here and all of life in the San Luis Obispo County area as Fukushima was to Japan and Chernobyl to Russia. This plant poses disaster of immense proportions. And the fact that it is well beyond it's design service life span further adds danger to the potential that lies here. It needs to be closed and safely and soon. Please, I'm begging you, make the responsible choice and close this nuclear power plant now.
Thank you very much,
Josephine Laing
(805) 549-8125

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

I am strongly opposed to the continuation of operations at Diablo Canyon beyond the currently agreed closure. This is a high risk operation situated on fault lines, at risk of earthquake and tsunami surrounded by a growing population of 500,000 people not to mention wildlife and birds of land and ocean. An accident here would be devastating to the local economy as well as the welfare of San Luis Obispo county inhabitants.
It would be much more efficacious to take the money that the Governor is offering to expand battery storage and to encourage wind and solar power in alignment with the recent federal IRA act.

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Dear Decommissioning Engagement Panel,

I am writing to voice strong opposition to any extension of Diablo operations beyond the scheduled decommissioning date of 2025. Please do not let a lot of pro-nuke chatter distract you from your work to facilitate the smooth, agreed-upon conclusion, on schedule, to Diablo operations.

Advocates for the extension seem to forget that Diablo is not “advanced nuclear.” Those of us who live downwind of it know that it is old technology, with a history of significant problems. It is limping toward the finish line and we just hope it gets there in one piece. Its risk profile, as an outdated, poorly maintained relic, there amidst the faultlines, is, to put it mildly, sub-optimal.

The future that all of California is racing toward needs every available state and federal dollar to be directed to renewables, storage and better transmission operation. The baseline electricity of the future will be provided by energy storage, not by outmoded nuclear.

Decommissioning needs to happen on schedule, with no carve-outs, or wavering on dates or terms. Please continue to do your valuable work to keep decommissioning happening on schedule, as agreed upon.

Thank you for reading my comments and best wishes to you in your continuing work on this critically important matter.


Lauren Hanson
Santa Barbara County resident

August 24, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Stanford Physicist Amery Lovins presents compelling data arguing that the extension of Diablo Canyon beyond 2025 is counterproductive from both an environmental and ratepayer perspective......

August 23, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Please find attached a letter from the mayors of nine Central Coast cities, on the proposed extension of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

August 23, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Please find attached the opening statement by State Senator John Laird (SD 17, including all of San Luis Obispo County) at the Governor/CEC/CAISO workshop on August 12, 2022, regarding the proposed extension of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

August 23, 2022Panel Website

I don't see the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. When I click on the link, it's not there.

August 23, 2022Other

re: Continued operation of Diablo Canyon

see attached report: Pathway to a Clean and Reliable Grid for California -- without Diablo Canyon: Analysis and Recommendations

August 23, 2022Proposed Extension of DCPP Operations

Attached is the draft legislative language by (1) Governor Newsom on 8/11/22 regarding the potential extension of operations of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant and (2) the CA State Assembly response on 8/19/22.

August 18, 2022Other


Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant must be shut down as scheduled by 2025. There are myriad unresolved and disconcerting issues: seismic vulnerability, violation of the closure agreement, unlawful cooling system, storage of even more high-level radioactive waste, and the prohibitive cost of this attempt to resurrect the Plant. In addition, in a worst case scenario, there would be no escape of injuries and likely death of Plant employees and residents in much of San Luis Obispo County.

We are near-lifetime residents of San Luis Obispo who urge the scheduled closure of the Diablo Canyon Plant as scheduled by 2025.

Warren and Carol Sinsheimer
San Luis Obispo

August 15, 2022Decommissioning Funding

I do not support nuclear power as part of the solution to solving the climate change crisis. I urge you to not extend the shutdown timeline for Diablo Canyon any further than it is currently set. Providing more energy to support unconstrained economic growth is neither inevitable nor desirable, and nuclear is not the answer.

Nuclear technology is a risk for people and the earth, and I am strongly opposed—for moral, spiritual, and practical reasons—to current efforts to keep Diablo Canyon open. And I strongly oppose any subsidies for funding nuclear power plants. Rather, I encourage you to deny the extension and put the money that would be used to continue the plant operations for an additional 5-10 years toward real solutions for green, renewable energy that do not involve generating additional nuclear waste.

California must accept the responsibility of working to create socially responsible and environmentally sound solutions to global climate change. We can do this by funding research to increase energy efficiency, incentivize energy conservation, and add additional to our currently supply of renewable energy sources. California must lead the world by using less energy, and working to make a drastic reduction in energy use a goal for society at large.

Do no extend the operation of Diablo Canyon. Please continue with the decommissioning as agreed in 2016 and get California out of the nuclear business.

August 15, 2022Other

Attached letter contains questions regarding potential license extension versus decommissioning of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

League of Women Voters of SLOCOLetter-on-Diablo-Decommisiong-8-15-22.pdf
August 14, 2022Other

Dear Diablo Canyon Decommission Engagement Panel,

I live in San Luis Obispo. Diablo opened when I was a small child. It is always in the back of my mind that it is there and is a threat to our community that we don't have a way to stop if the worst were to happen. Nuclear is a Pandora's box that we have been working towards putting back in the box during my lifetime. This is the last nuclear plant in California. Why should we on the Central Coast be asked to shoulder this burden longer than the 2025 shut down agreed to through great process? I don't see it as a tradeoff between meeting our climate goals and closing Diablo Canyon. We could as a state make the choice to live more simply and efficiently and use less power. Please do not support extending the life of Diablo Canyon.

Sincerely, Amy Sinsheimer

July 27, 2022Other

Letter submitted to PG&E by legal counsel on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.

Dear Ms. Poppe and Mr. Simon,

Attached please find a letter on behalf of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, urging you to abide by the terms of your well-considered 2016 decision to retire the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors and alerting you to some of the legal consequences of abandoning that decision.


Diane Curran
Counsel to San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace2022.07.26-San-Luis-Obispo-Mothers-for-Peace-letter-to-PGE.pdf
June 19, 2022Other

As a citizen of California and the world I fully support keeping Diablo Canyon open—

not just in the interim but permanently.

it is irresponsible to decommission this facility at this time when

clean reliable power

and I emphasize

clean reliable power

is required not only for California but for all of us.

The benefit of keeping Diablo Canyon open far outweigh any financial considerations.

Please approach this with objectivity.


charly ray

May 25, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MS. ORTIZ-GREGG:· Good evening.· Hello.· This is Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Gregg.· I just wanted to hear professor -- or Dr. Cochran once again state the response to Mr. Severance's questions in regards to additional study in regards to the safety aspects or the external aspects of the UCLA study.· I think it was, "What's your question, Bruce?" And then the response was that should local governments be interested in further information, that they could pursue proceed with questions.· So I wanted illumination on that a little bit more, Dr. Cochran.· Thank you.

May 25, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

· · ·MS. BROWN:· Yes.· I am Marty Brown and I live in Atascadero.· And some of my questions and concerns have been answered tonight.· Orano's safety record is impressive.· The horizontal positioning of the new seems safer, and local suppliers and labor would be used.
· · ·And my question about how many years are the new designed to be safe -- safe or repository, and the answer was 100-plus years.· One of my concerns would be CIS, the necessities, supposedly, of transferring the high-level nuclear waste to another area.· And it seems that that would negate the need to transfer waste to a CIS site, because a permanent depository will probably be found and designated by that time.
· · ·One thing that I was questioning is radiation monitoring. How would that be done?
· · ·And that was my questions.· Thank you.

May 25, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

· · ·MR. HOFFMAN:· Thank you.· I realize it's late, so I will try to be quick.
· · ·(Inaudible) started with horizontal casks and then went to vertical.· You started with vertical casks and they're going to horizontal.· Somebody's got to be wrong.· I -- I don't understand why there's the difference and why you're disagreeing with Sam and Oakley's consideration after they've spent years trying to decide what to do.
· · ·Also, regarding the safety of waiting to fill the canisters.· And there's -- a lot of people have been pointing out how much more radioactive the fuel is at the beginning. That's a pretty strong argument for keeping the -- for shutting the plant down, and then four years from after it's shut down, it -- everything is a lot safer than it was when it was operating.· So I think a lot of that discussion lends itself to the idea that, let's go ahead and shut the plant down.· Much more massive radiation problems, that phrase was just used, and I think that applies especially when operating reactor. · · ·And lastly, my last point is, I don't think that the -- the casks you're designing are protected against a large airplane strike.· I don't think that's possible to do.· And so I'd like you to address that issue with airplane strikes, typically of very large airplanes.
· · ·And thank you very much.· This has actually been very wonderful to listen to.
· · ·Actually, I am calling from Carlsbad.· I live near Salmon Oaks.· Thank you.

May 25, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

· · ·MR. MARRE:· Great.· I want to build on what Marty Brown alluded to in terms of monitoring of radioactive waste (inaudible) good old-fashion Geiger counter.· You have some vents, some intake events which are just, you know, fine.· But then you have some outflow events.
· · ·What is your radioactivity of the air coming out of there in those outflow events?· That's the question.

May 25, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Written comment submitted during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

Questions for Dr. Budnitz:
Regarding existing 58 Holtec casks at ISFSI:
Would containment, whether at the ISFSI or elsewhere on-site, protect canisters and concrete casks from sea air corrowion and degredation? Should an independant study evaluate this?

Regarding Orano system:
Should expedited transfer from pools to casks be evaluated for risk by and independent study?

May 25, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

· · ·MR. GREENING:· Okay.· Relative to the revelation I think I just heard, that if the criteria were changed, PG&E might consider applying for the funds that would enable continued operation.
· · ·If that is what I heard, then my question is:· Would PG&E continue working with the County on its application for decommissioning based on the assumption that it would ultimately decommission whether or not it received the funds, and whether or not it extended its license?
· · ·With obviously some major changes having to be worked into the process and into the environmental review, we don't know whether that would mean a cooling tower, we don't -- we would imagine it would have to mean a larger pad for the -- there's all sorts of things that haven't been thought out with an extended time scale.
· · ·But would it continue with the processing of its application for decommissioning, or would that simply be abandoned if it received the funds and left sort of a stranded cost?
· · ·And I might just bridge to a follow-up on one of the questions that's already in the record that's not specific to the system, so I guess this is the time to ask it now, and that has to do be the timing, that if the County's permitting process and environmental certification process is completed prior to the NRC process, it's asked, essentially, how the safety issues, the NRC is considering would be handled, I have the additional question of how would the County be able to make the required health and safety findings for this project without knowing the NRC's ultimate disposition of the questions?
· · ·So those are some connected process questions.· Actual substance questions with the system, I guess we will wait until later, but those are some process questions that definitely came up.
· · ·And I certainly would urge caution about changing direction from a decommissioning process into which a lot of detail has gone into any other kind of a process.
· · ·And I can tell you right now, if the -- any kind of license extension would mobilize another attempt to do seismic blasting in the ocean, there's going to be a tremendous upsurge of public alarm and everything we can do to make sure that never happens.· Thank you.

May 25, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

· ·I'm Eric Greening.· And first, I -- I share both Marty Brown's observations and her question of, relative to the timing of removing the elements from the pool, I think the reason to do it sooner, rather than later, to the extent it
can be done safely, is because the potential for catastrophic emptying of the water from the pool.· And what would result from that is much more massive in terms of potential harm and spread of harm and distance than something happening once it is in the solid canisters and in the storage that's been explained by Orano.
· · ·My big question now -- thank you for the answer.· I think it was Tom Jones that answered the question relative to the county process in the event that they went for a license extension.
· · ·My other question relative to process is, if they went for a license extension, which I am not recommending -- it open all sorts of cans of worms -- what would happen to the NRC process relative to the canister?
· · ·It's obvious that the current plan is to allow the fuel elements to continue to be loaded and function until the end of the license and then begin to unload them.· And any license extension would mean some huge changes in all of that.
· · ·Would the present NRC process be halted and restarted? Would it somehow be modified in the process of continuing? What would happen to the NRC process relative to the high-level waste handling in the event that PG&E tried to secure a license extension?
· · ·Thank you very much.· And it's been a very informative evening.

May 25, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

·MS. ZAMAK:· Hi, this is Jill Zamack.· I live in Arroyo Grande.· I have two questions.· One is about the potential for concrete degradation on the pad.· I understand that the rings will be removed on the existing pad and the steel posts, which go to the depths of 7 feet, will remain.· The concrete will be sealed in, grouted was the term used, and leveled.
· · ·Is there concern about concrete degradation as a result? · · ·And two, in April, I (zoom interruption) and tonight, I heard through Mr. Lanthrup that no modifications are needed. Which is it?· Thank you.

May 24, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Re: "Spent Fuel" Nuclear Waste Storage:
I refer to my presentation to the Panel on February 23rd, 2019, also sent to you by e-mail attachment on February 20, 2019 at 8:06 pm.
In addition, I offer these comments:
I.) According to ORANO, the NUHOMS Cask Storage System allows for much shorter cooling times of the spent fuel assemblies (SFAs) in the pools before transfer to the ISFSI at decommissioning. On its website, ORANO praises the financial savings for utilities as a main consideration. But what about the safety of the community? Can we really rely on assurances by the cask manufacturer? So far, PG&E has always stressed that the minimum cooling time for SFAs newly removed from the reactors must be 7 years for high burn-up fuel!
Moreover, how can radiation leaks from the casks on the ISFSI be dealt with if the pools are no longer available?

II.) Re: Prolonged plant life after 2025:
I strongly agree with Jane Swanson's viewpoint on this issue: "Mothers for Peace: Stay the course on Diablo Canyon closure" in THE TRIBUNE, page 10 B on May 15th, 2022.

III.) In conclusion, Diablo should close as presently planned (2025) but the pools should stay open for an appropriate period of time, to allow for longer cooling of the SFAs under water (at least 7 Years) and easier handling of potential radiation leaks at the ISFSI.

Thank you for your attention.

Klaus Schumann
Member of the SLO County Nuclear Waste Management Committee, 1996 to 2002.

May 20, 2022Other

why are we shutting down a plant that produces a huge amount of the states power before we anyting to replace it?

May 3, 2022Other

Facilitator, Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel

May 3, 2022

Please include this email and attachments as a comment for the May 4, 2022 NRC Public Meeting set for San Luis Obispo, California.

Since early 2017, nonprofit intervenor Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP) has been sharply critical regarding the State of California plan to close California's largest generator by far and replace it mostly with Wyoming coal-fired generation.

This State of California plan is not in the public interest. Instead it serves narrow private interests. CGNP's criticisms have included numerous filings before regulatory and oversight bodies at the local, state, and federal level.

Per the three attachments, decision makers finally appear to be paying attention to CGNP.

CGNP sincerely looks forward to an upcoming announcement regarding the dissolution of the Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Panel as the plant continues to supply safe, reliable, cost-effective and vital emission-free power (and desalinated water) to California.


Gene Nelson, Ph.D. CGNP Legal Assistant
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP)
1375 East Grand Ave Ste 103 #523
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420-2421
(805) 363 - 4697 cell
Government@CGNP.org email
https://CGNP.org website

Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc.Experts-Weigh-in-on-Seismic-Safety-at-Diablo-Canyon-in-Letter-to-Newsom-05-02-22.pdfWith-Emissions-Soaring-Democratic-Governors-Sour-On-Plans-To-Shut-Down-Nuclear-Power.pdf
April 22, 2022Safety

Attached, please find Holtec International’s letter retracting the letter of April 6.

April 21, 2022Other

Hi! I'm a reporter with KCBX Public Radio in SLO, I'm doing a story on last night's panel and I'm wondering if I'm able to pull audio from the meeting recording on the website? I think I would mainly use commissioner's or PG&E representative's comments, but possibly public commenters if they are associated with an advocacy group.

Please let me know if I'm able to treat this as public record/have permission to use audio.

Ben Purper

April 20, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

1. We need a better explanation of the comparative risks of keeping the spent fuel in the pools compared with getting it out earlier into dry storage. My understanding is that dry cask storage is much safer than pool storage, even for fuels of equal heat content? There are other advantages to expedited spent fuel transfer such as cost savings, faster decommissioning, earlier repurposing, etc, but safety is the highest priority. Overall, I am glad to hear technology has improved and fuel can be removed from the pools sooner.

2. A better understanding of the upgraded seismic adjustments would be helpful. Why aren't the canisters anchored to the pad and only to one another? What is the risk of a landslide occurring on the mountain in back of the SNF storage pads and blocking the vent ducts? From the photos the mountain in back looks ominous. Are there any models of a realistic worst case scenario earthquake - what is safer- the spent fuel pools or dry storage?

3. What are the changes to the SNF canisters that enable them to withstand greater heat? If the metal has changed, is the new metal more susceptible to stress corrosion cracking? Are there any trade offs? Do we know how the new metals age over time compared to the old?

4. Is it possible to have the Independent Safety Committee do an evaluation of the new system and give input to the Panel and community? This would be reassuring. It might also be helpful to hear feedback from the UCLA Independent Risk Assessment Program and the California Energy Commission on the new system.

5. Will some Diablo Canyon employees be trained in new system of cask transfer? They mentioned a 6 week specialized training program for Orano employees that will be operating the system. If Diablo Canyon employees will be providing oversight of the system, hopefully they will be trained too.

6. I was glad to hear Orano is expected to develop Interim SNF storage sites. Hopefully that can be an interim solution down the line. It doesn't make sense to keep SNF in a seismic coastal zone long term with sea level's expected to rise.

April 20, 2022Safety

My statement tonight:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the panel. I would like to begin with an apology to PG&E, this Panel and the local community for the tone of my letter of April 6. You see in the last 15 years we have had twenty nuclear units that changed their dry storage system from Orano to Holtec and never the other way around, until we received this shock. We care deeply about Diablo Canyon Plant and the community, and we have Safety and Technical concerns. Once notified, I traveled to SLO and had the pleasure to meet with community leaders including three members of this panel and learned of a unique DC ISC which consists of eminent Nuclear Scientists and Engineers. Absent a meaningful dialogue with PG&E leadership, we will communicate our specific Safety and Technical concerns with the ISC this week. Again, apologies for the tone of the letter and thank you for your time.

Holtec International
April 20, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

My two questions are regarding the Holtec International response to PG&E's letter titled "Notification to unsuccessful bidder which was published on the engagement panel website on April 6, 2022.

Based on Holtec’s previous baseless attacks on the engagement panel at SONGs, I assume the Holtec letter was nothing more than childish, inflammatory, and unfounded or as quoted in the SLO Tribune an “over-the-top outburst from a hubristic company that believes it would be awarded a multi-million-dollar contract”.
(1) If my assumption is correct, will Comprehensive Decommissioning International (CDI) which is jointly owned by Holtec International and SNC-Lavalin, or Holtec Decommissioning International (HDI) be allowed to bid on future work for Diablo Canyon?
(2) Is this type of behavior enough of a wake-up call to PG&E that Holtec is the type of unprofessional, toxic company we do not want in our community?

April 20, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

JANE SWANSON:· All right.· I am Jane Swanson.
I am with San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, and my
question is a follow-up to what Sherri Danoff brought up
recently about the planned -- last October, I was one of
a few citizens invited to witness the inspection of
some -- one cask they were going to lift up, and Sherri
used the word "transporter" -- I was thinking it was a crane
-- but whatever it was that was supposed to pick
the thing up, it didn't work, so that was canceled.· And
my understanding is that that inspection will happen in
May sometime.
· · · · ·And my question is about details on that.· So
the inspection will be looking for what?· I'm presuming
corrosion or something, but I'm wondering if somebody
could explain more about the difference between
looking -- why and how you look at the bottom of a cask
as opposed to the sides or the interiors?
· · · · ·And how many casks will be inspected in this
way long-term?· I am only aware of one being planned,
and I don't know if that is just the first of many or if
that's it; so that's my question.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Go ahead, Philippe, if you can
answer the question.
· · · · ·PHILIPPE SOENEN:· Yes.· So the purpose is to
lift the canister so we can look at the bottom of the
cask itself for any degradation to validate that there's
nothing unexpected going on there.
· · · · ·Just to be clear, it is not part of a
requirement of the License Renewal Application.· That's
why we have submitted the application prior to these,
but it is a prudent action that we are taking just to
validate that there's nothing unexpected going on.
· · · · ·So depending on what the results are, we expect
they are just the visual indications and not necessarily
having to do cask lifts in the future, but it's to get a
good baseline of how our system is performing.

SLO Mothers for Peace
April 20, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

SHERRY LEWIS:· Okay.· Can you hear me now?
Okay.· Good.· Talking about the crawler that goes into
the vents and down -- up within the canister, when you
inspect a canister or a cask, whichever it is, when you
inspect that, do you send this crawler down through all
the vents or just one vent per canister?
· · · · ·PHILIPPE SOENEN:· We -- we do it in quadrants.
We go through all the upper vents; so we have -- we get
the entire circumference of the canister.
· · · · ·SHERRY LEWIS:· Thank you.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Thank you.

April 20, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

KAYLENE WALKER:· Hi.· Kaylene Walker.· I live
20 miles from San Onofre, and I carefully followed the
whole Holtec fuel loading process and the multiple
problems and then the information that was discovered
from the various problems like a canister was broken,
shims was loaded, and the near drop, of course.
· · · · ·I did more than listen to the talking points
from the -- the public talking points.· I read technical
documents.· I attended NRC meetings.· So I would like --
· · · · ·And I would like to just call your attention to
some kind of misleading statements that I think are
worth looking into.
· · · · ·Number one, the inspection of the -- these
canisters are problems with corrosion and cracking;
that's -- that's an expected fact about these canisters.
· · · · ·The inspection technique is not an inspection.
That isn't -- the inspection report made a clarification
that this was a visual assessment.
· · · · ·That would be like going to the dentist and
having them take pictures of your teeth with that
camera.· They cannot assess the microscopic crack
development that happens with these canisters.
· · · · ·Visual assessments are not effective at
assessing crack development.· They can look at
precursors but not actual cracks.· That's a very serious
· · · · ·The repair technology that you mentioned that
San Onofre has been touting, that is ASME -- I mean EPRI
put out to the court in 2021 that said this nickel-spray
repair technology cannot -- there's no credit -- no
credit should be taken for structural or strength
properties of cold spray.
· · · · ·ZEKE TURLEY, AGP:· That's time.
· · · · ·KAYLENE WALKER:· Also -- is my time up?
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Your two minutes are up.
· · · · ·KAYLENE WALKER:· Let me finish that one point.
The cold spray will not stop a helium leak from a crack.
That is like a very serious problem.
· · · · ·Anyway, I have so many points that I would like
to make.· Maybe I will put them in writing.· Thank you.

April 20, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

KAYLENE WALKER:· Hi.· Kaylene Walker,
W-a-l-k-e-r.· (Indiscernible.)· I am familiar with
San Onofre, Holtec, and Orano system.· A couple of
questions.· I will just rapid fire the questions, and
then you can answer them as you will.
· · · · ·You said that the consideration of embedded
carbon parcels in a canister is not an issue of concern.
I think that should be looked into.· That would break
through a very thin chromium layer and potentially
create a pit corrosion problem.· I think it's worthwhile
looking at that.
· · · · ·Question:· Has your repair technology been
evaluated or approved by the NRC or ASME?· At
San Onofre, Holtec presented the repair technology, but
we found out then later that it had not been evaluated
or approved by NRC or ASME.
· · · · ·At San Onofre Orano got an exemption from
taking radiation readings at the outlet air vent.· Will
the outlet air vent radiation readings be gotten at this
· · · · ·A note to verify.· Cracked canisters have no
seismic rating.· Orano, I think in one of your slides
you claimed fuel retrievability.
· · · · ·I am wondering, do you actually mean fuel
retrievability or if this is an alternative definition
as in NRC's ISG 2, Revision 2, where they defended a
canister retrievability?
· · · · ·I am wondering what your fuel inspection method
is.· If you just do a video camera or if you actually do
a vacuum can sipping or in-mast sipping.· Is it -- you
know, what is your fuel inspection?· With a 50 kilowatt
heat load, that is a frightening heat load.
· · · · ·That is almost double the 30 kilowatt heat load
at San Onofre, and that is alarming for the problem that
could incur with the fuel, which is what we are storing,
the fuel could be (indiscernible) -- high-pressure
· · · · ·In the unlikely event of a canister failure, my
question is, Orano, do you plan to put a canister into a
overpacked cask? And if that is your plan, has
that been evaluated or approved or requested for
approval from the NRC.· Thank you very much.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Thank you.
· · · · ·KAYLENE WALKER:· These are serious questions
that the community -- those are serious questions that I
believe the community should be aware of these kind of
issues.· Thank you.

April 20, 2022Other

Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MARY MATAKOVICH:· Thank you.· Good evening.
It's been a very informative evening for me, and I
appreciate the opportunity to address you.· My name is
Mary Matakovich, M-a-t-a-k-o-v-i-c-h.· I am a resident
of Avila Beach, as well as I serve as a Port San Luis
Harbor District commissioner and as a liaison to our
Avila Valley Advisory Council.
· · · · ·So I'm representing the Avila Valley Advisory
Council tonight by emphasizing the letter that we have
sent you on April 11th, and I hope you have all read it.
But I would like to say a few words about our letter.
The Avila Valley Advisory Council has
appreciated representation of Avila, Avila's interest on
the decommissioning panel, and our council member,
Sherri Danoff has been instrumental in keeping us
· · · · ·Time after time we get reports, and she updates
us on what's going on with this panel.· It's very
impressive, and we need it translated sometimes into
just kind of basic -- basic facts.
· · · · ·And if I could give you an example of her
approach with us, you know, we share our concerns.· She
explains a little bit more about what the work of the
panel is and then addresses our questions.
· · · · ·And Sherri has been very instrumental now in
the intended to decision to barge the majority of the
waste materials from Diablo instead of the 70,000 truck
trips through tiny Avila on our narrow winding road.
· · · · ·Despite that Avila is the community, which has
the most -- will be most effected by commissioning
activities and also storage of used fuel in the future.
Whoops.· Am I out of time?
· · · · ·We ask you to -- we ask you to assure the
continued representation of Avila's interest on the
panel.· Avila Valley Advisory Council asks that an
ex officio position be placed on the panel and be
established with Sherri Danoff who has served in this capacity.
· · · · ·Please, Avila needs to have an experienced
representative on the panel, and we thank you for your

Avila Valley Advisory Council
April 20, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

ERIC GREENING:· I am Eric Greening,
G-r-e-e-n-i-n-g.· I live about 25 to 30 miles due north
of the plant.· And my question -- first question is the
timeline relative to licensing and public comment.· That
public comment may be somewhere around 2023 or 2024, and
yet I understand the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will
be holding a hearing in San Luis Obispo, Wednesday,
May 4th.
· · · · ·And I am wondering what is the purpose of that
hearing?· What is the scope of that hearing?· And is it
cross-purposes or is it in alignment with what we are
talking about today?
· · · · ·My other question that relates to timeline is,
basically, with this stretched-out licensing period and,
obviously, to get to the NRC's licensing period,
obviously it cannot be rushed.
· · · · ·Before it is concluded it sounds as if the
County will be needing to go through its CEQA process
from which this component is exempt and issue a land-use
permit for which some changes must be made to have a
valid permit.
· · · · ·And I am just wondering, given the preemption,
the ability to intervene in this, if it's going to have
to use the information base of what's been learned
through the licensing process, what information base
will be available to the County to make required health
and safety findings for the high-level waste system?
Thank you.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Thank you, Eric.· Tom Jones said
he could address that one question very quickly.
· · · · ·TOM JONES:· Yeah, Tom Jones with PG&E.· So the
NRC's public meeting on May 4th is with the
decommissioning rulemaking.· It's not associated with
the fuel management process at all.
· · · · ·Once the application for the COC has been made
to the NRC its public process will take over and make
the parties aware of the time frame in which they have
to file to participate in that proceeding.

April 20, 2022Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

PIERRE ONEID:· Okay.· This is Pierre Oneid, and
I am with Holtec International.· We are headquartered in
Florida with our factories in New Jersey.
· · · · ·And I wanted to thank you for the opportunity
to speak to the panel.· I would like to begin with an
apology to PG&E, the panel, and the local community for
the tone of my letter of April 6th.
· · · · ·You see, in the last 15 years we have had 20
nuclear units that changed their dry storage system from
Orano to Holtec and never the other way around until we
received this shock.
· · · · ·We care deeply about Diablo Canyon Plant and
the community, and we have safety and technical
· · · · ·Once notified I traveled to San Luis Obispo and
had the pleasure to meet with community leaders,
including three members of this distinguished panel, and
learned of a unique Diablo Canyon Independent Safety
Committee which consists of eminent nuclear scientists
and engineers.
· · · · ·Absent a meaningful dialogue with PG&E
leadership, we will communicate our specific safety and
technical concerns with the IFC this week.
· · · · ·Again, apologies for the tone of the letter,
and thank you for your time.

Holtec International
DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)Uploaded File 1Uploaded File 2
Scroll to Top