Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel

Public Comments

DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)
November 3, 2021Other

Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. BROWN:· All right.· I guess I'm muted.· Well, listen, as a former member the Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel I took particular pleasure in listening to Tom Jones' report on how PG&E has incorporated guidance from the panel into to their planning.· It's extensive.· And for me it's very gratifying to see that.
I'd like to assert the following point:· These positions from the panel just didn't come from the minds of the panel members.· It was a result of an extensive engagement with the public, of conducting multiple public hearings, taking input from the public and incorporating that into the thinking about our recommendations.· And I would just like to encourage the public to continue that process.· We're a long way from finishing this.· And also to compliment PG&E for creating the process in the first place and really paying attention.· So thank you very much.

November 3, 2021

Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. GREENING:· ·Thank you.· First I'd like to second Scott Lathrop's comments.· Thanks to the Commission for hearing and taking in all of the public comment and to PG&E for making an effort to take a lot 20·a lot of those recommendations by ways to implement them.
I do have two questions.· One relative to the approval process on the casks by the NRC.· There is a public comment period in that process.· And my question on that is simply:· What consequence those public comments have?· Can they actually lead to some -- to changes in the project description to mitigation measures?
And then my second question -- and I want to be sure that Susan is on the same page with Tom with this. We saw what looked to me to be a very rushed schedule for approval.· If both the Planning Commission and the Supervisors are to approve this project by the end of 2022 there's normally at least two months between a Planning Commission action and a Supervisors' Appeal Hearing.· So that would be Planning Commission in October.· That's 11 months from now.· That presumes a completed final EIR with a 60-day comment period between the draft and the final.· That simply looks like an extremely rushed EIR process considering all that it has to look at.· That would, basically, put a draft EIR out in June, six months after the scoping period is done.
I would assert that what we most need from the EIR process is not speed but thoroughness.· And I don't see a -- how a schedule that presupposes a completed EIR -- final EIR by October can accommodate the needed thoroughness.
So, Tom -- I don't want to put Susan on the spot. I know this isn't your segment.· But I would like to know that Tom and Susan are on the same page with this. Thank you.
MR. JONES:· ·We're on the same chapter, I don't know we're on the same page, Eric.· And I tell you this. I think Susan was clear in her update earlier that -- that the county intends to publish its schedule for this process that's been revised around the scoping period. So I would say stay tuned for a couple of weeks and we'll hear more from the county on that schedule.
Our schedule doesn't change, though.· It assumes a pessimistic hearing.· We did build it off of our previous ads through the county and coastal processer. And at the end of the day we still look for that final approval three years from now, the California Coastal Commission.· And that's actually a longer schedule than our other projects have had.
To your first question, I really think there is a ·complaining or a combination of a couple different processes.· So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have a licensing action on the safety of the casks. It's federally preempted.· And that will be their exclusive jurisdiction.· That process will mean a licensing action.· But the land use and CEQA process for the construction of dry cask storage was for the entire project, for the loading of up to 138 casks for fuel at that site in all seven pads in perpetuity.· So that action before the County Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission won't come back.· So for the future ·of dry cask storage it's a licensing action.
Then to your last point.· Does the NRC take public comment into account?· Yes, they do.· And there's multiple ways.· One, there is just straight public comment like people do at a hearing or a meeting like this.· And the second is they also have their own intervention process where people can achieve standing and participate in the licensing action.
So all of those things are run by the NRC not the utility.· I'm just familiar with them.· But that's laid out on the NRC's website as well.
MR. GREENING:· Thank you for clarifying that. And, again, I -- I will continue to advocate for thoroughness over speed when it comes to environmental review.

November 3, 2021

Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. GREENING:· Thank you.· I just wanted to get some clarification.· I thought I heard that the panel was going to have a field trip to San Onofre, is that correct, where you'll physically actually be touring the facilities there?
And my question is:· Is that going to be a public meeting in any way?· Either that we would be able to be present virtually or that people would be present on the·site physically?
And, again, I have the concern that being on a tour only with the utility operator gives you certainly a large part of the picture.· But you don't have a complete picture unless the public is also able to participate and speak to you.· And, particularly, I would assume people in the Samuel Lawrence Foundation 10· ·would be very interested in participating and having their concerns heard.· It might provide some lessons for us in terms of things to avoid.
So tell -- if you can explain more about the circumstances, the meeting, and its openness to the public and whether the proceedings of that meeting will somehow be available to the public after it has happened.· Thank you.
MR. JONES:· ·Chuck, I can address that.· This is Tom Jones.· So no, it is not open to the public.· It's an intense tour of the physical decommissioning of the power plant.· So everyone will be wearing personal protective equipment.· They will be escorted by experts from Southern California Edison.· And a pretty hazardous industrial environment.· So it's not going to be a public meeting.· And it is by invitation to their private property.
I will say that the panel will clearly get an update.· And they do trip reports.· So the panel has benchmarks; San Onofre.· It's traveled to Rancho Seco in the past and offered those updates to the public for what they have seen with regard to the -- any entity, whether it's Samuel Lawrence or anyone else, the panel is free to invite who they wish when we build out an agenda for a meeting.
MR. GREENING:· ·Thank you.· So I will repeat the comment from earlier in the meeting that I think that the Samuel Lawrence Foundation should be invited to a future meeting, one of your regular public meetings as well as the utility itself to kind of give their perspective as well as the utility's perspective on lessons that we can take with us in terms of our own experience that is happening in ensuing years that they have been through already.· Thank you so much.

November 1, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

We have made a proposal to repurpose the facilities by using the land surrounding the facilities to install solar dishes to generate power to feed the plant through thermal storage batteries. See linked presentation.


Perryman Technologies Research LLC
September 30, 2021Community Outreach Process

A few weeks ago David Victor of the SONGS Engagement Panel was invited to make a presentation on the post-operation facts of nuclear power decommissioning to the National Academies of Science and Engineering (NASEM). It was part of a 4-hour, multi-part presentation. You can view the entire series (worthwhile indeed) at https://livestream.com/nasem/events/9775108

However, for the sake of convenience and time commitments of the DCDEP, it is possible to simply view David VIctor’s 15 minutes presentation at https://livestream.com/nasem/events/9775108/videos/225597509

Go to the link about and navigate the player bar to the 2 hour and 33 minute mark into the afternoon session.

Alliance for Nuclear Responsbibility
September 29, 2021Safety

Please see attached comments and report of David A. Lochbaum regarding safety and security of ISFSI facilities.

Alliance for Nuclear Responsiblity
September 21, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MS. JOHNSON: Thank you so much to the panel, especially Larry and Patrick. I am very interested in maintaining the use of the desalinization plant. I own two properties in Carlsbad and I'm very familiar with that plant. We really do need to balance out the consideration of a seven-mile pipeline versus saltwater intrusion for highly valuable ag land in the area Huasna, Oceano. I think we need to preserve that extra water resource. Carlsbad is operated by Poseidon It's at no cost to the taxpayers and I think you could probably get vendors to operate and provide the water through the desal plant. I'm excited about that.

Also would like to see some extra camping and glamping in the area. That's a beautiful area and I think that would be a light touch and could afford a lot of enjoyment for that area.

So those are my two -- I think the panel has been wonderful, very informative and I'm excited about learning more about this as we go ahead, but I really hope that the desal plant is repurposed and continued and we continue to learn and refine and figure out howto power that resource. So thank you very much.

September 21, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. BROWN: Okay. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the whole panel and the speakers for an excellent program tonight. I very enjoyed it. I really have a couple questions, no comments. The question I had, maybe a missed the content of the speakers from the California Energy Commission, but I'm wondering what is the timing for proposals to be received for the offshore wind?

My second question may be directed to Tom Jones. Knowing that one of the aspects of the offshore wind project that ties in with the decommissioning of Diablo is making use of the power distribution system and I'm wondering, Tom, have you received any feelers whatsoever from anybody, any potential wind farm operation about tapping into the distribution? That's all I had.

September 21, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. DOWNING:· My name is Matt Downing. I'm the community development director for the City of Pismo Beach. First of all, take the opportunity to thank everybody on the panel. It always makes me happy seeing my fellow community members participating in things like this. That really means something to the greater community. I've spoken to the group before about this process and we -- I just wanted to reiterate some of my comments. The desalinization option is great, but I will say that we do have our project, Central Coast Blue, that we are continuing to move forward with. Granted, it's hit some speed bumps as of late, but we are confident that we can work with our partner agencies to smooth all of that all out and that will provide us with the recycled water for our south county area that we need.

I think it would be a terrible waste to get rid of the marina. I know we've hinted at that in the past. So I'll just put a plug in there. Anything we can do to promote that marina would be a unique opportunity. Having some type of commercial use out there, theglamping idea is good, but as we know, anything with that large commercial draw is going to bring -- because of the remoteness that several of you spoke about is going to bring what it always brings and that's traffic. So really addressing the traffic issues, having one way in and one way out to that area currently is going to be the foremost for our community, as we do see vehicles back up onto our local roadways from large events out in Avila.· So just wanted to make those comments and thank you everybody for their time this evening and have a wonderful rest of the night.

City of Pismo Beach
September 21, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

JANE SWANSON: Number one, given there are 750 acres in Parcel P and given that this meeting is about the repurposing of Parcel P, I was very surprised to hear the real estate consultant refer to -- I thought he referred to thousands of acres or did I misunderstand that? I may have a misunderstanding. So I thought clarification when he was talking about glamping and all these touristy things, is that within the 750 acres or is that beyond?

Second question. Yet to come in this meeting is PG&E's update of the new nuclear fuel storage system with discussion by panel members to follow. I don't see on the agenda that there is an opportunity for the public to ask questions following the panel discussion and I'm hoping there is. So I would like clarification on that. Will the public be able to ask questions or clarifications following that report?

September 21, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. GREENING: All right.· Thank you. Yes. Thank you. I'm Eric Greening and excellent presentations. Obviously, a lot of issues raised and I think the previous speaker hit on something. If there were to be a residential or resort used, I'm almost positive the county would require a secondary egress. We're not just talking about a secondary route through Avila. We're talking about a complete secondary egress from the site. That in itself would have a normal -- enormous environmental impacts creating that. Certainly, if it were no longer a roadless stretch of coast northward from there, that would have enormous impacts and so wildfire issues obviously evacuation issues from radiological and so on, there would have to be more than one way out if there were people actually living there.

Relative to the wind energy, my understanding is current blades are made of unrecyclable materials that become waste products. Would that be the case with these absolutely enormous blades? What would their life cycle be? What would their duration be? What would their destination be once they cease to be useful? And I would advocate that Cal Poly and all other potential research partners look into bladeless options for harvesting wind energy. I understand that there are some increasing possibilities out there and I don't think we should just assume the word wind means turbines. There's marbled murrelets and wedge-tailed shearwaters and other birds that would be knocked out of sky by these blades and I think -- Anyway, I think definitely the whole characterization of future uses, of course, depends on the site being safe and there's a lot of information we need. My understanding is the county has not yet accepted the application as complete and some of it has to do with waste characterization and handling. Do we have any idea when the scoping period will be on the county's EIR? If there's anyone from the county to answer that, I would be appreciative. Thank you.

September 21, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. GILESPY: I've been a long-time resident in this area. I started fishing up here in 1970. I fished this coast offshore in the area of this composed development and know it very well and I'm also educated in oceanography and I'm concerned about the very interface with the water of the wind that normally would be transiting that area and the possibility of all the upwelling currents that drive the warm waters offshore and commence the prime production process of plankton and chlorophyl development and the basic process of growing food fish and just fish in general. This plant is 400 square miles. 200 of these gigantic windmills could have an effect on this extremely important aspect of the California coastline and especially at build-out if they went all the way up the coast. I can tell you when you interfere with the wind, the warm water comes in and mandates the area and it will also have a regional climate effect not only on the coastal communities, but as well as those inland and as well affect potential rain patterns and temperature patterns.

I guess I first got into this when I was looking for was there any study about this and I didn't see it. I had to get over the gag reflex of this grotesque development in this pristine ocean area and its potential effects could alter the very aspect of Ocean, which is a placid ocean that relies on wind patterns and wind to commence and continue at circulation. I don't know if I fell within that. I could probably go on, but thank you. This panel is very edifying and I appreciate their being part of it.

September 21, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. SHOULDERS: I have several comments. I'll be curt.

On the windmill issue, the 1920 Marina Act or the Jones Act requires the ships that would install these installations to be made in the U.S. and carried by U.S.-owned and crude vessels and there's no such huge ship that can install these devices in the United States at all and for the very small number of East Coast installations, they had to have a Dutch ship -- I think it was Dutch -- come to Canada to take all of the equipment and install it because there's no such ship in the United States. So I think when we talk about the feasibility of installing a few of these on the West Coast, we need to be aware of the fact there's no way to install it as I stated.

Secondly, on the desal issue, 18 months ago or two years ago, this panel had a long presentation by the engineer at Diablo Canyon that's in charge of the water and a representative of the south county organization that's responsible for water and that south county person said he had no interest whatsoever in taking Diablo desal water because of the cost issue and I'm surprised no one seems to be aware of that.

Thirdly, when we talk about the massive amount of renewable energy we need in this state to meet this goal that the state has put forth, and I listen to the galatial pace of accomplishing getting windmills approved, it doesn't support the kind of goal that the state has. You know, this is an existential climate change and we need to do a World War II kind of thing. So we need to cut through the bureaucracy. And, finally, the access road, I'm particularly familiar with the -- if you look at coming up the slope from the entrance, there's lots of slippage that's occurred over time and there's a massive threat there and an expense to keep that road open and that needs to be considered when we talk about using any installations further up north from the entrance point. I'm done.

September 21, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MS. HARVEY: Thank you all for the opportunity to speak. Susan Harvey. I'm the chair of the Conservation Committee of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club and first I'd like to say that we are very strongly committed to very local impact reuse of the Parcel P whether it be recreational or low impact research facilities.

My next thing, the idea of an industrial port somewhere on the California Coast sort of shredded my brain and I started wondering about the transmission potential of the lines coming out of Morro Bay, what that capacity was and the transmission capacity coming out of Diablo and do the Morro Bay lines and the Diablo lines feed into each other. I think that's really what I was really curious about, especially with the concept the onshore facility that might be needed for wind. Thank you.

Sierra Club
September 3, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Hello. I attended the August 25, 2021 Panel meeting regarding repurposing of Parcel P after decommissioning. I was quite horrified by the presentation by Richard Gollis from JLL. He relayed the "market assessment" of building a resort hotel, an RV park, marina, homes.... I don't know where he got his information, but this is NOT what the community wants. The DREAM Initiative of 2000 had support of 74.66% of the county voters to set aside the Diablo Canyon Lands for habitat preservation, agriculture, and public use upon closure of the plant. This Initiative was unanimously supported by the SLO Board of Supervisors, PG&E, and numerous community and environmental organizations. The Strategic Vision of the DCDEP based on community input confirms that the land be used for the common good. Parcel P, specifically, is to be used for educational purposes and production of clean energy.

August 31, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Attached please find the comments of David Lochbaum, formerly of the Union Of Concerned Scientists, with regard to the relative safety/risks of spent nuclear fuels storage in above-ground casks.

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Comment : Requesting Growth plan to recondition the Electrical and Water Generation Plant look at original purpose of the land dedication to the growth needs of the State ambitions to supply health and safety to the public supporting coastal and inland power supplies, finishing the original plant goals and adding addendum expansion by growth the size of the generation platform Support growth with advanced tech knowledge, then alter the reactors support to the growth of the clean energy systems while adding Water resource to the expansion with desalination facility current capacity and increase it's size to support local community growth in San Luis Obispo County. Positive growth and safety.

ADB Serv.
August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

I don't wish to speak but I do wish to express my displeasure with the senseless closing of the Diablo Canyon power plant

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

What is the plan for the storage of the fuel rods?

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Keep the desalinization plant open to preserve Lopez Lake water levels after the Diablo Canyon power plant closes.

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

I would like to propose that as part of the planned future decommissioning of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, the board consider converting the artificially protected open ocean area where Diablo takes in their coolant water, that the area be transitioned into a protected marine preserve which would allow recreational scuba divers the opportunity to swim and hike in that area (for a fee). I do not make this recommendation on a lightly. If you have ever been to Point Lobos in Carmel California you know they charge for entry/parking. They also charge for scuba dive teams, which they limit to 30 teams per day. The offer a limited number of dive team permits daily and they are often sold out weeks or months in advance, especially for weekends. Point Lobos is operated by the State Parks Department who also issue scuba diving passes via their website. Point Lobos charges $10 for parking per vehicle and another $30 for a dive team consisting of two divers (divers always use the buddy system). I do not know the max depth or contour profile of that specific area, but if it's more than 30' in some places, this could be a great means of both revenue and marketing for the state/county as well as an education tool for the California dive community. Scuba divers are a special breed of human being in that we always want to preserve the environment which we recreate and dive in. We are stewards of the ocean and the marine life contained within. We are guests, not residents. The ocean does not belong to us, yet we are responsible for its care and well being. I've been blessed to be part of the California Dive Community for the past six years, but unfortunately there are not many dive sites in our local area. I drive at least two hours North or South to reach a 'destination dive site'. Consider what it could do for the local San Luis Obispo Coastal community if we had a dive destination like none other on the West Coast right here in our local coastal waters.

None. Recreational Scuba Diver
August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

What is the estimated cost of repairs and upgrades to keep the plant open?

SLO citizen
August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Because of our grid's increasing dependence on generators outside their planning jurisdiction, will the state and CPUC require SafStor for the site to preserve the option of restarting the reactors?
Who in CPUC will be held responsible if, after shutting down these reactors, power shortages result in loss of life?
Has CASIO identified in-state carbon-free generating capacity to at least replace DCNPP while maintaining grid reliability?

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Can wind and/or solar power generation be considered for Parcel P?

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Why are we shutting down California's main source of clean power? "Replacing it with solar and wind" is not realistic, as that capacity would be built anyway, and we could take the methane "natural" gas plants offline instead.

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

I understand Trevor Keith will be unavailable, but do believe informing the public of the likely (rather more extended than previously understood) timeline for processing the Coastal Development Permit and accomplishing the EIR will be important, especially if there is a prospect of the scoping period and hearings happening during the holiday period. Although it is always timely to put forward visions about future use scenarios, it is premature to choose one until we have seen robust alternatives analysis in the EIR. I would also like to see emphasis (and collaboration with Cal Poly) on researching bladeless options for harvesting wind energy.

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Offshore wind farm

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

When will there be clarity on security and disposition of the spent fuel pools?

August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Please pursue extending the license for this reactor, is it desperately needed to achieve our Carbon Reduction goals. I have heard recently CA is adding more Gas power to prevent Black Outs, and this will only get worse without Diablo Canyon online. We should learn from Germany who tried to increase their renewable power while also decommissioning their reactors, and are now dependent on Coal and Russian Gas to fill the gaps when renewables aren't able to produce. We need clean baseload power that is not weather dependent.

CenCal Health
August 25, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

I know there will be a great deal of interest in designating this land Open Space and committing it to passive, cultural, and recreational use. And I support that, but with reservations. My concern is that we don't know what the future holds and should be careful to not preclude beneficial public uses of this property for what are now unforeseen future needs. This land may be needed for public energy uses or other public infrastructure uses in the future. Any designations or entitlements placed on the land should be subordinate to and subject to future 'public domain' or 'utility' or 'public infrastructure' uses. Thank you for keeping this in mind.

August 23, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

Given mandated directions into alternative energy sources (wind, solar) that are known ahead of time to never fulfill the state's energy needs, why does it make sense to decommission a clean source when it is very likely needed to meet the needs of a greatly expanding population driven by CA's long standing population-based expansion economy - let alone switching from hydrocarbon fueled vehicles to electric vehicles in the near future? Decommissioning Diablo Canyon doesn't make any sense to me. Why does it to this commission?

August 21, 2021Water Resources

Consideration should be given to convert a portion of an existing structure into a historic landmark. Diablo Canyon Power Plant is the “poster child” for the controversy of nuclear power in the USA. It’s construction split the Sierra Club into those who suggested the location versus the Pismo Dunes and those who opposed the plant completely. The US DoE is creating historic landmarks with virtual reality stations at several remediated national nuclear lab sites (Oak Ridge, Tn). The history of the siting of this plant, it’s operation and closure should not be lost to history. Should the costal trail be extended through this land, a landmark station for the plant south of the creek and a station for the Chumash site north of the creek would be fitting monuments for the endeavors of humanity over time at this location.
In addition, consideration should be given to leaving the containment domes, once gutted and decontaminated, in place. This would eliminate the cost and CO2 emissions to demo the domes. Europe is littered with the ruins of cathedrals and castles which have been retained as monuments to the past. Shouldn’t we leave similar markers for tourists and future generations at this unique site?

August 21, 2021Water Resources

The study on the cost of a pipeline to deliver “desal” water from the plant to Avila did not include an option to pump water into a tanker ship/ barge at the intake and transport the water to The CalPoly pier and pumping the water from the ship into the pipeline at Avila. This option of “tankering” large quantities of water avoids the capital cost of constructing a long pipe line and the o&m costs of pumping the water uphill. This option would allow water from DCPP to be obtained by ship when needed without the huge capital Cost of a long permanent pipeline.

August 21, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Over the many decades local residents have witnessed any number of technical and human mistakes and errors at Diablo Canyon. Now, on the eve of walking away from the outdated, uneconomic, and dangerous facility, PG&E is seeking to us dry cask nuclear waste storage containers that barely meet minimum standards. This toxic legacy, again for decades, has no safe "forever" storage facility and will remain at Diablo into the foreseeable future. This situation calls for the most sophisticated, state of the art, dry cask storage containers--no matter what the costs. And these costs need to be paid for by PG&E stockholders, not its customers.

August 20, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

I am a proposal for the repurpose of Diablo Canyon

August 19, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

I cannot formulate questions or comments until after hearing the presentations. I hope there is opportunity for public comment after PG&E's UPDATE, item 9, because those are topics I am most interested in. The agenda lists Panel Discussion but not public comment after Item 9.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
August 12, 2021Decommissioning Funding

After an 18 month delay the CPUC has finally issued a proposed decision in the decommission funding case for Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is pleased that several of our key recommendations for saving money and improving safety were adopted in this multi-billion dollar endeavor.

Please see attached release, which is also supplemented with our editorial replies to recent stories suggesting that the continued operation of Diablo Canyon can provide an answer to California’s energy conundrum. It can’t.

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
August 12, 2021Environmental Impacts

To whom it concerns, I am new to California and cannot fathom, why the Diablo plant should’ve be decommissioned. For all those people that believe in science, it should be clear that the plant is actually a great stop gap for losing any more production while greener alternatives are decoupled and brought on line. Please reconsider closing down such a dependable, clean and productive supplier of electricity!
Thank you,
George Hanna
Nipomo, Ca.

August 2, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

At a recent meeting of the Engagement Panel, Dr. Peter Lam was scheduled to respond to questions and concerns, but time ran short so that never happened. It was stated that a special meeting would be scheduled to allow Dr. Lam to share his expertise. When will that happen? I don't see it on a schedule of future meetings.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
June 10, 2021Transportation Impacts

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. RANDS: This is Janine Rands from San Luis Obispo and I'm concerned -- I'm making a call about the transportation of anything related to the – anything toxic or anything related to withdrawal from the Diablo plant, that it's a two-lane highway and it's also a huge recreational site and that there are at least five blind corners for even cars and bicycle riders. How are we going to mitigate safety for all of the above and then we add in trucks.

The other thing that I'm really concerned about is the whole social justice issue of where these materials might be transported, that the litigation for keeping people that are -- the marginalized communities where these materials are destined for, it's not just and I hope the community and the communities where this stuff is going, what get to be consulted. So thanks a lot for this conversation.

June 10, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. KINSINGER: Hi. My name is Debbie Kinsinger I'm a CEQA consultant from the San Diego area, most of my experience with forest service, fish and wildlife service and things like that.

I have a lot of questions about the interim consolidated storage idea. First of all, the one that's already been brought up about that there's no long-term site, and as far as I understood, that this wasn't an option until we had that that somebody else explained better.

So, second, when -- I think it was Rodney was explaining about the safety of the casks and about their transportability, and just from what I've been learning in San Diego with the casks that we have here, they're too long to be put on -- on a rail car and they're also too heavy for a rail to support. So when he talked about, you know, transporting these all the time, we've been doing it for years, to my knowledge, nothing like the type of casks that are going to be storing these fuels has ever been transported. And he talked about being able to demonstrate that they could be repackaged. To my knowledge, we don't know that they can be repackaged. We have an example of a cask that -- and how it could be used, but it's an example that doesn't have fuel in it and so many questions that when -- I've heard a couple of times people talk about this whole idea about interim storage and how we are going to move this material off site and I think that there's been some misrepresentation about what is possible to do based on what has been done. That's not consistent to what we're going to try and do.

So what has been done is low level transportation of low level, not high burn-up type of fuels, and in containers that are not heavy casks. Somebody said -- I thought there was something like 72,000 pounds per cask and I'm not sure that that's accurate. That's just something I remember off the top of my head, but anyway, there's so many questions and when I listen to Rodney speak, it sounds so great, wow, here's a great solution, but just what I have learned about this in the past is, one, that interim consolidated storage is not feasible and, two -- or it's not legal, and, two, that a lot of the things he said we've been doing and that it's -- that we're able to do is not -- we're not able to do those things with the type of casks that we have and the type of fuel that they are enclosing.· So --

ZEEK:· Excuse me.· Your two-minute time is up.

MS. KINSINGER: Thank you. I'm looking forward to scoping meetings where we can bring this up and hopefully make better choices.

June 10, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. WALKER: Great. This is Kalene Walker. I'm down in -- near San Onofre. I wish I had done the research or had the time and known about canister choices before I was made aware of the issue. I became aware of the issue when the canister of the whole system had already been purchased and so it's been an uphill battle ever since, if you followed any of the drama that unfolded there.

I'm curious why you have a four-year -- why the -- those recommendations for a four-year cooling time to get the fuel out of the pools. I think that's really an arbitrary requirement that really limits a very serious important option as far as your canister cask choice.

Donna Gilmore of San Onofre Safety came and spoke to your panel a couple years ago or whenever it was when some industry representatives presented to you and I think she outlined some fundamental differences and there's two different types of containers globally. Only two types of containers. There's thin wall canisters and thick wall casks. The thin wall canisters is what the industry is using and what the NRC is allowing. They're extremely substandard. They vent air. They cannot be stored in a building. The thick wall casks can be stored in a building away from all of the environmental hazards. It can be a harding building. They are much more protected. It's like not having a containment dome on a power plant. These things are sitting out in the open. There's all sorts of other things. These canisters, the NRC knows they are prone to corrosion and cracking. There's no way to inspect for corrosion cracking. Mr. McCollum from the NEI stated that the San Onofre had the gold standard of inspection repair because the Coastal Commission approved our supposed inspection repair plan to rationalize that the fuel was maintained in the transportable condition, but the –

ZEEK:· The two-minute time has passed.

MS. WALKER: Okay. Simply, the inspection is only a visual assessment. I would highly recommend you look up SanOnofreSafety.org and just do some research. This is like the -- in perpetuity is the operative word, and regardless of what happens with decommissioning, this fuel and how it's stored, and there's the need for repackaging, has not been factored in. I could go on and on. Thank you so much.

June 10, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. PULIDO: Thank you very much. I just have a couple questions and thank you so much for letting me participate. They're basic questions. Maybe you can help direct where they should be addressed, but I hear 250,000 years as far as a half life for the radiation and I'm hearing 80 years for the casks. I guess my
question is is that what provisions are being made for future contractors years and years down the road if they go bankrupt? And I'm speaking from the reference of oil facilities and oil wells where they're abandoned and bankrupt oil companies just walk away. I'd like to know is that something that's going to be addressed

And the second question I have is the current location, I understand additional casks are going to be put at that same pad, if you will, but what is the sea level of that and what studies have been done as far as a potential tsunami? I know there's been earthquake studies. Thank you very much.

June 10, 2021Lands

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. HAVLIK: Thank you, Mr. Anders. That's spelled N-E-I-L, H-A-V, like in Victor, L-I-K, and I am speaking to you tonight in my capacity as president of the Board of Directors of the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District. We are one of nearly 100 such agencies throughout the State of California. Our
district covers the area of San Luis Obispo County from Highway 41 in the north to the Santa Barbara County line on the south and from the coastline of the Pacific Ocean inland to the Los Padres National Forest, which, of course, includes the Diablo Canyon 12,000 acres. We offer engineering and natural resource advisory and management services to our interested publics. This includes civil engineering, not nuclear engineering, which we've been hearing about tonight, but civil engineering such as dealing with roads, water and stormwater conveyance, and water impoundments, including, but not limited to, stock water impoundments and containment structures. We also provide natural resource management and agricultural resource
management. These include things such as water quality, water conservation, erosion control and soil conservation, but very importantly, resource conservation districts are one of the natural conduits for the use of public money on private lands where those public monies have a public benefit and water quality and erosion control come immediately to mind and are common in the nexi. Is that the right word? Are common nexuses for the use of those funds. We just want to apprise the panel of this information and the services that our organization can provide We do have engineering expertise and natural resource expertise available to us and these can be applied to, really, any suitable portion of the Diablo Canyon lands, including the power plant site itself and the surrounding lands, and we would be delighted to be a participant in that. So I just ask that you keep us in mind as you move forward and we will be and will continue to be participants in this process as it moves forward. Thank you.

Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
June 10, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. SWANSON: Okay. So I'm Jane Swanson. I live in San Luis Obispo. I hope that is all I'm supposed to say about myself. So I'll keep it brief. First of all, I really want to compliment and thank very much the members of the Engagement Panel. This is volunteer work and the number of hours they put in are beyond my comprehension. I've attended almost all of the meetings over the years. I'm very impressed with them. So I want to thank the current, past and future members of the panel.

Secondly, I really want to second the suggestion of Linda Seeley that a workshop be held that includes Dr. Lam because we didn't get a chance to hear as much from him as he has to offer. Not just Dr. Lam, but also, you know, I would want PG&E and the county to be present at that meeting.· So that would be very valuable. I very much appreciated the workshops held in February of 2019 on the spent fuel storage. That was very hopefully, also.

And then a question, which might be answered at some other time, of Rod McCollum of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He was very optimistic and advocating of consolidated interim storage, but I am aware that that project violates federal law because federal law states that interim storage may not happen until and unless there is a permanent repository. So I'm quite mystified why there's this brouhaha about consolidated interim storage because I don't see any permanent repository on the horizon. So I just want to make sure everybody listening to this meeting is aware of the fact that consolidated interim storage in New Mexico and Texas is not a legal proposition. So I don't understand why that's even being put out there. So I'll let it go at that and let other people have their turn. Thank you.

June 3, 2021Community Outreach Process

I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you design this website
yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz answer back as I'm
looking to create my own blog and would like to find
out where u got this from. kudos

May 28, 2021Spent Fuel Storage

I look forward to wind and solar generation of energy becoming the truly renewable power source for the
Central Coast . When comparing nuclear generation with its aftermath of eternally toxic radioactive waste,
there's no contest.
There are over 80,000 tons of radioactive waste nationally and this amount will grow while these 93 active
nuclear plants make more day by day. Transporting it across the country to New Mexico and Texas is not the answer. The governors of these two states have written emphatically they don't want it. In fact, the State of
New Mexico has sued the NRC and the U.S Government for their failure to fulfill the mandates of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983.
Thirty Indigenous tribes have been directly affected by in situ mining and leaching of uranium to make
Yellow Cake for fuel in nuclear reactors. The immense amount of tailings left on or near reservations have
contaminated groundwater. There are 1,500 uranium mines in New Mexico alone -- one third of which have been abandoned. There is no disposal -- only displacement. Neighborhoods of people of color and the poor have historically been targets for toxic waste. CIS may not be "interim" but forever.
PG&E ratepayers have paid billions over 40 years for its waste storage. It's "our"waste because we have used the power it produced. Our billion dollar investment should be used to build the safest, most robust
casks, housing and siting that is monitorable, manageable and secure as close to its source as possible. MOVE IT ONCE to the final repository when it is established.
"We must do what's best for future generations."

May 28, 2021Water Resources

I sent an email on 4/24 inquiring about assessing the possibility of pumped storage hydro solution utilizing Lopez Lake Reservoir and the Diablo Canyon desalination plant. I have not received any response.

May 25, 2021Security

Dear Diablo Canyon Commission,

In light of the recent hacking of the South East US pipeline, what new security measures are you taking to prevent a ransom hack & shut down of the plant?


JP Drayer

May 16, 2021Repurposing of Facilities

The Diablo site should become a wildlife sanctuary. Limit people to only those needed to safely decommission the nuclear plant. The site should remain ready to build a future nuclear plant in case one is needed in the future, but in the mean time the animals need a sanctuary,.

Retired (none)
DateDecommissioning TopicComment / Suggestion:Group Affiliation, if any (Optional)
Scroll to Top