I am writing to inquire whether the DCDEP participated in the Department of Energy’s request for information re: “Using Consent-Based siting Process to Identify Federal Interim Storage Facilities’ and associated questions.”

I mention this because the subject has been raised at DCDEP meetings, and the questions regarding when the DOE will accept the high level radioactive waste does affect the schedule and cost of the decommissioning process.

The overall issue is found at the DCDEP website:

https://diablocanyonpanel.org/decom-topics/spent-fuel-management/

Prospects for Completion

This leaves all nuclear power plants in the US without any designated long-term federal disposal site. As a result, most nuclear power plants, including DCPP, must store their spent nuclear fuel, indefinitely, on site in dry cask storage systems made of steel and concrete casks. The prospects for completion of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository or any other such permanent repository in the near future are low and there is currently no approved funding for further development. However, there was a Bill in the last Congress (the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendment Act of 2017) that directs the DOE to develop a federal Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) to be used until the development, construction and operation of a permanent federal nuclear waste repository is developed. That bill (HR 3053), passed the House of Representatives by 370 – 72, but Senator Heller (R- NV) prevented it from coming to a vote in the Senate. Senator Heller has since lost his seat. A similar Bill could be introduced in the current Congress.

It has come to my attention that at least one other decommissioning advisory board, that of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, had taken it upon themselves to provide public comment on this topic, and placed their letter on their website. I am attaching it. Had participating in this public comment opportunity been discussed by the DCDEP? Where the members made aware of it, collectively or individually? It would seem that comments from communities immediately impacted by decommissioning would have a significant voice in the process as they will be the first to be left with the waste (long before the majority of the reactor sites that have received 20 year license renewals from the NRC).

I am attaching the Vermont letter. Although the deadline has passed, the DOE website does indicate that subsequent comments can be sent, they are not guaranteeing that late arrivals will be reflected in their final report. Thus, an opportunity remains should the DCDEP wish to engage.

I will also post this to the public comment section of the DCDEP website.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring this to yours and the committees attention.

Yours truly,

DAVID WEISMAN

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

With all of the powere shortages California has , they will only continue to increase one by closing diablo, but two by the increasing needs for electricity as more and more electric cars, all electric homes and businesses come on line. Until much more alternative power sources are built, not just planned, Diablo should remain operating. One other topic that gets very little, if any attention, is the ability of Diablo to desalinate ocean water. The plants ability to do this can be expanded at a time when our super drought is predicted to continue for years! Please lets keep this plant operating at least until we have replacement power in place instead of closing it to make some feel good. It does fit California’s green agenda for the near future.

Could DCPP faculty be repurposed into a thorium-fueled reactor ?

Dear Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel members and San Luis Obispo community members,

I am Tyson Chen. I am a Cal Poly student and I am writing as a new resident of San Luis Obispo. Before coming here, I have heard nothing but good things about this town, especially about how beautiful, temperate, and natural the SLO environment is. I traveled here with skepticism and modest hopes. But after living here for several months, this town’s climate and environment resembled nothing short of a paradise. Every major environmental decision should be made with careful consideration to preserve the beauty of this town and its surroundings.
While it’s good that SLO and the rest of California are transitioning to nuclear power and renewable energy, decommissioning Diablo Canyon and other nuclear power plants is not an environmentally feasible idea and could incur large costs to the environment and destabilize the energy supply.

In response to the closure of Diablo Canyon, Gavin Newsom, the then-lieutenant governor of California expresses his concerns over the loss of nuclear power in California and its impact on the environment: “The sudden closure of [nuclear plant] San Onofre... lead to significant greenhouse gas emissions... highlighted my concerns around Diablo” (Cardwell). Natural gas and fossil fuel production must ramp up to cover the lost power from decommissioned nuclear plants, in turn causing a rise in greenhouse gases and air pollution. So far, the air in San Luis Obispo is clean, clear, and rejuvenating. I hope not to witness the same deadly and depressing smog that afflicted my hometown to be seen here in SLO. I do not want to be locked indoors because the air outside is too polluted to breathe, and I dread the possibility that the snow-white morning mist and fog turn into a toxic brown haze.

California’s general strategy to replace the power generated by nuclear plants is to install renewable energy production infrastructure, such as solar cells and windmills. Scientists performed a case study in Sweden projecting the environmental costs of replacing nuclear energy with renewables. The study concluded that such a scenario would increase greenhouse gas emissions (Hong et. al 1). This is not only caused by the increases in natural gas and fossil fuel production, but a substantial amount of greenhouse gases would be released from producing new infrastructure. In fact, nuclear power generates around 570 and 4000 times more energy for the same area of land compared to solar and wind energy respectively (Smil). Right now, Diablo Canyon plant only takes up land for one large structure. Imagine covering the lush hills and the natural, undisturbed land of SLO with solar farms and windmills just to cover up the power generated by one nuclear plant. Such a decision would disrupt the lovely landscape that the Central Coast is best known for and eliminate a source of clean, stable electricity.

As California shuts down Diablo Canyon, the state’s last nuclear plant, I question the wisdom of this pivotal decision. As end users of technology, the way we consume electricity in our everyday lives will remain the same, but what becomes our primary source of energy will affect us all; it will affect the availability and stability of our electricity, and the environmental impacts of the source of power will affect our future environment, our health, and our quality of life. All I ask of the panel and fellow residents is to reconsider nuclear power as a feasible source of energy for the future. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Tyson Chen

Attached please find the editorial of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility in response to the Stanford/MIT study advocating the continue operation of Diablo Canyon beyond the negotiated retirement date.

Please see the following editorial of the Sacramento Bee:
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=3a443188-db22-49f1-94d8-f9a38ff2cacb

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.

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

MR. GREENING:· Thank you.· I'm Eric Greening. I live in the North County.· And I think the reason people are calling Susan "Sharon" is because she's sharin' so much important information.
But, anyway, I do have a question that -- I guess the timeline is still a little bit mysterious on the EIR.· But I have a concern to raise about that timeline in reference to something I brought up at the County Supervisors yesterday when -- when Susan was giving a progress report, which is that a very important increment of this project is the casks and how they will be handled.· And we don't yet know what that will look like.
And I was, essentially, defending the need of the EIR to provide full analysis and mitigation of the hazards thereof, even though the county doesn't have control over that particular increment of the project; for the same reason, for example, that it needs look at hazards and mitigations of those hazards relative to things like earthquakes, even though it has no control over the placement of faults or the timing or intensity of earthquakes.
So in any event, my concern is the -- the consultants were given a budget which presumes a certain workload and a certain timeline.· And I would just like to hope that whatever it takes to fully understand the casks and how they will be handled, and, how they be handled in the event of a need to replace one, et cetera, et cetera, so that mitigation measures be developed as needed once the hazards are fully understood that we not rush this thing ahead of a understanding thereof.
And then the only other thing -- and I'm going to bring these up during scoping too.· This morning I was at a very sobering global meeting relative to Fukushima and the plan to hemorrhage 860 trillion becquerels worth of radioactive water into the Pacific.· I can see a nexus for monitoring -- careful monitoring not only relative to Fukushima as a kind of a nexus for hazards we endure here generated locally, but also perhaps to catch local -- anything that locally gets into the ocean.
Currently, the Mothers for Peace sample ocean water and send it to Whit's Hole (phonetic).· And it has detected spikes from Fukushima's cesium.· But what we do not have and, apparently, don't have anywhere along the coast of -- of the U.S. is monitoring up the food chain. Concentrations in the sea water are one thing, but concentration in sea life, especially as you get toward the upper end of the food chain pyramid can be quite a bio concentrated other thing.
And so I would just like to put out there the possibility that we look at a program.· And, presumably, the different isotopes we could identify what might come from a Diablo Decommissioning operation versus what might have come from Fukushima.· But we definitely need to be gathering information about both.· Thank you very much.

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

MS. HARVEY:· Can you hear me now?· There I go. Thank you.· Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I'm wondering about Phase III and scoping comments and the county's analysis of reuse.· Does that apply only to Parcel P?· The EIR is only looking at Parcel P; ·6· ·is that correct?
MS. STRACHAN:· That's correct.· It's just Parcel P.· So the reuse options would be limited to Parcel P.
MS. HARVEY:· Okay.· Would the -- nothing in the EIR, then, would necessarily be looking at what opportunities there are for mitigating impacts with surrounding properties that PG&E owns?
MS. STRACHAN:· The -- the -- it would look at impacts associated with decommissioning within Parcel P. If t here were a part of the project that would impact offsite -- so, for example, the rail site -- the rail loading facilities I mentioned, those are offsite.· So we will evaluate that.· But since the -- the project boundaries are limited to Parcel P that's where the focus is.
MS. HARVEY:· And you wouldn't -- I guess I didn't state that very well. Could there -- is there a potential for offsite mitigations for onsite impacts?
MS. STRACHAN:· You know, that's one that's too early to tell.· It's hard for me to make an answer on that right now since we're just getting started.
MS. HARVEY:· Thank you so much.
MS. STRACHAN:· Susan, I understand your question. But it depends on the impact.· It's hard to answer that.
MS. HARVEY:· Thank you.

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

MR. GREENING:· Okay. Very good.· Thank you.· This is Eric Greening.· Thank you for that presentation.· I'm going to have more comments relative to the county process and the EIR process.
But my comment right now is simply a suggestion for a future meeting topic and presenters for it. And that would be to invite someone from one or both of the utilities active with the San Onofre Decommissioning. And then sort of for another view from a different angle of that process invite someone from the Samuel Lawrence Foundation and get a feeling and learn what we can from the experience of the utility that is several years ahead of us on a track that is at least parallel to and may have some resemblance to the tracks that we're going to be on here. And, hopefully, we can learn from missteps as well as successes.
And so, again, I would say don't do it without having the balance. In other words, have someone from one or the other of the utilities involved and havesomeone from the Samuel Lawrence Foundation so that we get a range of points of view on the experience and lessons to be learned there.
And I'm thankful for the opportunity to engage on agenda items as we go along. Thank you.

Hi
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.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:b212c656-9b73-4d87-a2a4-69eeab4597e1

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Offshore wind farm

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

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.

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.

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

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?