I would like to urge PG&E to take steps to conserve all of the Diablo Canyon lands, including Wild Cherry Canyon. In particular, I ask that the utility not transfer the fee title of Wild Cherry Canyon to HomeFed. For public access, I would like to see it available but limited in order to preserve the pristine status of the land with some guided Hiking trails. No Campgrounds, no Bike trails.

i guess California can introduce legislation on a whim nowadays. But why should we ratepayers who don’t live on the beautiful central coast have to pay for your “expected” loss of property taxes and revenue just because you hold the burdens of a plant that should have never been built in the first place and whose refusal to do an environmental impact report is just a formality. Ridiculous! We already pay for the decommisioning ! Even if it is just pennies on my bill for the next 6 or 8 years I don’t want to pay it!!!! Thank you for this opportunity of input.

The Wild Cherry Canyon land should be made available for public trail access. This would add a crucial piece for the California Coastal Trail, which will enhance future generations with recreational opportunities and increase tourism to the benefit of the local economy.

I would like these lands open to Hikers, Bikers, and Horsemen. Non motorized except emergency vehicles.

A supporter of conservation of the Diablo Lands asked that the PG&E map that’s been recently prepared for prior poster sessions be displayed at all the upcoming workshops and the next public hearing on August 29.

I talked to an Atascadero resident who attended the public hearing on July 25th. He is very interested in conservation of the Diablo Lands and Wild Cherry Canyon and hopes to be at the public hearing on August 29th to express his support for that. He doesn't drive and so he can take public transportation to the meeting -- however, public transportation will be unavailable returning home due to the late meeting ending time. I am going to try and find him a ride but I thought it important to note that public transportation can be problematic for people when meetings run late into the evening.

The League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo just passed a resolution, urging the conservation of all the Diablo Lands, including Wild Cherry Canyon. Please see the attached resolution.

I have lived in San Luis Obispo County for several decades. I am a Cal Poly professor and my wife is a labor and delivery nurse at Sierra Vista. We are raising our three young children here in San Luis Obispo. We have worked incredibly hard to pull together two incomes to constitute a livable wage that allows us to survive and thrive here. We implore you to protect and conserve all of Wild Cherry Canyon. Conserve it for public use and access, only. Please do not let this special area turn into another Central Coast development. Once it’s gone, we will never get it back. You know that, I know that, we all know that. Please protect this special area for our future generations.

This area of the coast is special and it needs to heal. The future of this area should be used for the public to camp and hike. No residential or commercial development should occur in this 12,000 acres.

Open public access and connect to Montana de Oro. Make it part of Montana de Oro state park. Thank You.

I heard from a PG & E employee that they support conservation of the Diablo Lands, and wish to prevent there the "predatory development that is occurring in San Luis Obispo.”

William Toman, Los Osos, CA

5 MR. TOMAN: Thank you very much. It's really
6 just a question. I'm Bill Toman from Los Osos. How can
7 PG&E and the Utility Commission reconcile the very, very
8 large differences in the decommissioning cost estimates
9 between San Onofre and Diablo Canyon?

Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Public Engagement Panel
July 25, 2018 Panel Meeting
Public Comments
10 As you noted, they're very similar in many,
11 many, many measures, similar size, similar volumes of
12 concrete to be removed, similar vintage, the State of
13 California regulation. Same, same, same, same, same,
14 but there's a very large difference between the cost
15 estimates. It seems that there's a justification in
16 SONGS for the much higher cost estimate.
17 MR. FRANKE: Yeah. I think Eric can probably
18 do a great job answering that.
19 MR. NELSON: I think you exactly described the
20 burden that we have with respect to the 2018 NDCTP.
21 It's up to PG&E to be able to make the case for what the
22 right amount of funds for decommissioning are and to be
23 able to clearly articulate that to the CPUC to have a
24 convincing case and such they agree with us and adjust
25 rates accordingly.
0058
1 So that's really our obligation and that's what
2 we've spent all the time doing the site-specific
3 decommissioning cost estimate and getting external
4 experts for is to be able to better articulate and
5 document the activities that are going to be required to
6 decommission the plant.
7 MR. TOMAN: Right. So as a follow-up, so the
8 proposed decision of the administrative law judge that
9 rejected the increase in the Diablo decommissioning cost
10 last year was because it wasn't properly justified as
11 opposed to the lower amount has been calculated to be
12 the correct number.
13 MR. NELSON: What I would say is that the judge
14 identified what she felt was the appropriate amount that
15 had been justified by PG&E for decommissioning and it is
16 our obligation to do better this time and to address the
17 issues that the judge specifically called out for those
18 areas where we didn't provide in her dramatic
19 documentation of justification for those additional
20 laws.
21 MR. TOMAN: Right. And in the past, because
22 the joint proposal had not been arrived at, PG&E had not
23 gone beyond generic studies to get your estimate and now
24 you're taking it very serious about a very precise
25 estimation of the total cost.

Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Public Engagement Panel
July 25, 2018 Panel Meeting
Public Comments
0059
1 MR. NELSON: I wouldn't use exactly those
2 terms, but yes. I would say we were already well along
3 the way and we will meet the deadline. So we have been
4 actively working with industry experts on that, taking
5 very sharp notice of the specific areas where we did not
6 get the exact funding that we had requested and we are
7 going after those.
8 MR. TOMAN: And, finally, a question. In the
9 2.5 billion dollar cost estimate, does that include the
10 removal of all the lines out to the central valley, out
11 to midway and gates?
12 MR. NELSON: No. I don't believe it did in
13 that one in particular.
14 MR. TOMAN: But will that be -- in other words,
15 will those transmission lines be removed after 2025?
16 MR. JONES: No. They will remain in place.
17 They are important infrastructure for the transmission
18 capability of PG&E and the central coast.
19 MR. TOMAN: Okay. And that will go all the way
20 from the Diablo swish yard out to --
21 MR. JONES: They will not be removed. You're
22 correct.
23 MR. TOMAN: Okay. Thank you.

Friends of Wild Cherry Canyon is submitting this position paper filed with PG&E in 2016.

The Cayucos Citizens Advisory Council has expressed their strong support for the conservation of all of the Diablo Lands. They formally adopted the attached resolution.

I have met with the SLO Democrats Club and they are very interested in the conservation of the Diablo Lands and public access as consistent with resource protection. The group has formally endorsed a resolution encouraging a conservation outcome for the lands, and it is attached here.

Friends of Wild Cherry Canyon was formed to promote the conservation of, and public access to, Wild Cherry Canyon, but has since increased its interest in conserving all of the Diablo Lands, consistent with the 2000 Measure A advisory measure which was endorsed by the County of SLO and PG&E. FOWCC maintains an active Facebook site under that name, where updates on the Diablo Lands, Wild Cherry Canyon, and other areas of conservation interest are continually posted and updated. They would like to make a formal, detailed presentation at the August workshops outlining a vision for the land that ensures its conservation and public access consistent with the protection of ecological, cultural, open space, and scenic resources.

Attached are historic letters of support for the conservation of Wild Cherry Canyon.

I have had several conversations with representatives of the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter. They are very interested in the disposition of all of the Diablo Lands and hope to make a specific presentation during the August workshops. They have suggestions regarding the conservation of the lands, appropriate public access, and protection of natural and cultural -- including Chumash -- resources.

I have had multiple electronic communications with representatives from equestrian groups who are interested in the disposition of the Diablo Lands. They are interested in the conservation of the Diablo Lands as well as public access, including a coastal trail connecting Avila Beach to Montana de Oro, which would be multi-use and allow for equestrian use in particular. They are interested in making a presentation during the August workshops.

Please see following file from Avila Valley Advisory Council

The American Woodland Conservancy would like to express our strong support of the conservation -- and public access as appropriate to maintain plant safety and security -- of the 12,000 acres surrounding the power plant, including Wild Cherry Canyon. We have adopted a formal resolution to this affect and align ourselves with the multiple other organizations and individuals along the Central Coast who support conservation, and not development, of the Diablo Lands. This is consistent with the will of the voters in the 2000 Dream Initiative.

Jane Swanson

15 MS. SWANSON: Thank you. Yes, Jane Swanson. I
16 am with San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and a
17 spokesperson.
18 First of all, I want to thank the PG&E
19 presenters and everybody on this advisory panel for being
20 so very well informed. The structure of this meeting is
21 excellent and clear. And the slides that PG&E has shown
22 us have been very useful, so thank you for all the hard
23 work that's gone into it.
24 I have two questions. Number one, after all

Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Public Engagement Panel
June 27, 2018 Panel Meeting
Public Comments
25 this spent fuel is put into dry casks -- I believe the
1 year was 2032 -- will the spent fuel pool or the cask
2 loading part of it be kept available just in case of a
3 need to repackage one of the dry casks or more than one?
4 I am thinking that repackaging possibly might be needed in
5 the event of corrosion or leaking of a cask or, hopefully
6 extremely unlikely, sabotage of some of the dry storage
7 casks. So that's question one about the ability to
8 repackage.
9 Question number two is about the trucking of
10 waste products of waste from the plant. I understand that
11 the thought is the most likely scenario is trucking,
12 followed by rail. And I am envisioning both the
13 radioactive waste and the heavy concrete and cut-up
14 components of Lord knows what all being removed from the
15 site. And I am wondering if the -- well, I kind of
16 personally doubt that the roads, the bridges, the
17 overpasses and the rail beds are qualified to handle such
18 extremely heavy loads. I can't think of anything else
19 that goes on a train through our county and down through
20 Los Angeles that would be nearly as heavy as the stuff
21 that would be coming from a nuclear power plant, so that's
22 my second question. Thank you very much.
23 MR. ANDERS: Thank you very much.
24 And that concludes our public comment period for
25 this evening. Again, there are multiple avenues of public

Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Public Engagement Panel
June 27, 2018 Panel Meeting
Public Comments
1 input, and we encourage you, if you have any questions or
2 any comments for the panel, to take advantage of those
3 pathways.
4 Now is the time for the panel to have a
5 discussion of anything you've heard or any questions you
6 might want to ask.

I attended the public meeting of June 27, and asked two questions at public comment time. When I sat down after speaking, the moderator started to move on to the next agenda item. Frank Meecham, member of the Panel, kindly suggested that someone should respond to my questions. I greatly appreciate that he spoke up, and PG&E did respond with answers that were informative. Based on this experience, I have two suggestions for future meetings: (1) all public comments or questions should be given a response before moving on to next agenda items; (2) at the meeting evaluation time, after members of the panel give input it would be a plus to invite members of the public who had been present to give their input also. The suggestions above are not intended to convey general criticism of the meeting. On the contrary, as I stated before asking my questions, I was impressed by the clarity and organization of the meeting, by PG&E's slides and verbal presentations, and by the level of knowledge and the quality of the questions and comments made by the Panel members.

By NRC rule I believe PG&E is required to provide a decommissioning cost estimate based on removal of all structures. However, only the radioactive hazard is required to be removed by law. Only a small portion of the plant contains radioactive piping systems and only a few locations contain contaminated or activated concrete.
Please consider leaving most of the structures in place after the radioactive hazard has been removed. This will greatly reduce the thousands of truck shipments from the site to haul non-radioactive debris to another location. Every truck shipment presents a risk and every truck shipment increases pollution. In Europe there are many ruins of cathedrals and castles. These are monuments to the endeavors of humanity for good or ill. Please limit the senseless increase in pollution and risk of highway accidents from hauling non-hazardous debris from this site.
Reducing such shipments will also greatly reduce the actual decommission cost. Unspent funds can be returned to the rate payers and or society in general for good works versus hauling dirt and rubble from here to there.

The radioactive rector vessel of the Trojan plant in Oregon, a twin of Diablo Canyon, was shipped whole by barge and buried at the US Ecology low level waste (LLW) disposal site in Richland, Wa. The Richland site is the LLW disposal site for the Northwest and Rocky Mountain Compacts. Currently Diablo Canyon cannot ship waste to the Richland site because it is in the Southwestern Compact.

Suggest the panel petition the next Governor of California, perhaps in a coalition with the SONGS decommissioning community group, to determine what the Northwest LLW Compact requires for the reactor vessels in California to be disposed of at the Richland site. The Northwest Compact agreed to take waste from the Rocky Mountain Compact in the past for a fee. Disposal of the large reactor vessels from California whole at Richland, Wa would greatly reduce the time, number of waste shipments and decommissioning cost.

1. I just watched the May 30 meeting on the county government channel. Very educational. Please make these videos of all the meetings available on the engagement website.

2. Land use issue resource: SLO Land Consevancy