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

"comment on recent FISION at Lawence Livermore Lab"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Along with complete accounting of how the money was spent.

Please send me a copy of your answer to my email

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE NEED DIABLO CANYON TO CONTINUE OPERATING

Is Diablo Canyon dangerous?

Nuclear power is as safe as wind and solar. In over 60 years of civilian nuclear power for some, only one plant had an accident that actually hurt or killed any member of the public: Chernobyl. Contrary to popular belief, the ultimate death toll from Chernobyl is not expected to surpass 200. (In fact, three other reactors continued to run there–one until the year 2000.) No country other than the Soviet Union has run a dangerous nuclear plant like Chernobyl.

Although the Fukushima accident seemed scary, it was a lesson in how safe nuclear power is. No one died or was hurt as a result of the radiation release. We now know that the residents would have been far better off staying put. To put this in perspective, Fukushima residents that moved to, say, Tokyo, actually put themselves in greater danger due to fossil fuel air pollution than the danger they faced from low level radiation by staying in Fukushima.

But we learned a lot more from the Fukushima accident. All reactors around the world have been updated to avoid a repeat of a Fukushima-like event. Example: passive hydrogen recombiners have been installed (to recombine steam that splits into oxygen and hydrogen) to avoid the hydrogen explosion that occurred at Fukushima.

But even if Diablo Canyon hadn’t had such safety upgrades, a tsunami is not a problem for Diablo Canyon. First, the plant sits almost twice as high above the ocean as the Fukushima plant and second, the topology of the ocean floor in the area does not support a Fukushima-size tsunami.

Does Diablo Canyon take away billions of dollars better spent on renewables?

Diablo Canyon turns a profit and is an important part of the local economy. It provides some of the best paying jobs in the energy industry. The $1.4 billion it will receive is simply a loan. It will be paid back.

Does Diablo Canyon kill enormous amount of fish and other sea life?

A common misconception. By law, the water leaving the plant cannot exceed the temperature of the water entering the plant by more than 22 degrees. That warmer water quickly dissipates in the vast waters of the ocean.

The only ocean life affected are fish larvae at the entry point of the warmer water. It is a tiny effect given the vastness of the California coast. The coast line at Diablo Canyon is actually a marine sanctuary and is carefully monitored.

Is Diablo Canyon even needed? Shouldn’t we get on with the long, expensive cleanup?

Diablo is very much needed. Already, the unnecessary loss of San Onofre’s clean electricity paired with dwindling hydro generation have set back climate mitigation in California for a decade or more. Consider that California got 50% of its in-state generation from CO2-free energy sources in 2021–the same amount as 20 years ago!

We have to put climate mitigation as our top priority. The climate doesn’t care how we get to zero carbon–just that we get there.

California needs a reliable, affordable, low-carbon electric grid NOW that must be able to grow to meet the demand from energy policies that will only increase our need for 24/7 baseload electricity in the future.
We simply MUST keep Diablo Canyon operating past the 2024/2025 closure date. Its reliable 2200 MW make up nearly 12% of our in-state low-carbon power. To shut it off now would take us backwards on our climate goals while jeopardizing our health and our economy from the threat of blackouts and energy shortages. The NRC has evaluated its seismic safety and validated that the risks of a catastrophic accident are acceptably low. The spent nuclear fuel stored on site will remain there whether the reactors are shut down or not. It is safely managed and monitored and poses no threat to humans or the environment. According to the International Energy Agency, the cheapest and quickest path to decarbonization is lifetime extension of existing nuclear plants. California should continue to show its leadership on confronting climate change and KEEP DIABLO CANYON OPEN.

Public comment presented during the August 24, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. FESSER:· ·Yeah.· My name is Ray Feeser.· I'm a 13-year resident of Avila Beach.· And I feel I represent most of the citizens of Avila Beach.· We were shocked a few years ago when Diablo announced that they were shutting -- or PG&E announced they were shutting down Diablo Canyon.· We -- for residents of Avila Beach we considered keeping the plant open a win, win, win.
· · · First of all,· right now we have a single road in and out.· If Diablo Canyon shuts down the plant and opens up to development our traffic on our one road in and out will likely increase.· We're already at a bumper to bumper traffic every weekend, so traffic is one thing.
· · · A bigger thing is the tax revenue for Avila Beach and SLO County that funds a lot of our schools and will be a huge loss if they shut down.
· · · And the third reason applies not only to Avila Beach, SLO County but the whole -- but California and the whole country, which is the fact that Diablo Canyon is up to nine percent of the state's electrical power -- clean electrical energy.· And I'd like to point out that California is currently 50 percent carbon emitting natural gas and 50 percent clean energy.
· · · And also a third of the clean energy is nuclear at eight and a half, plus hydro at seven and a half.· If you shut down our nuclear and our hydro is at risk due
to the climate change already, and the Colorado River drying up.· But the -- and it's already been pointed out that when Diablo Canyon -- when San Onofre shut down it added 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent pollution to the State of California which accelerated global warming.