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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Diablo Canyon Decommission Engagement Panel,

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

Sincerely, Amy Sinsheimer

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

not just in the interim but permanently.

it is irresponsible to decommission this facility at this time when

clean reliable power

and I emphasize

clean reliable power

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

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

Please approach this with objectivity.

sincerely

charly ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYLAN CANTERBURY BAKER:· Hi.· I am
Dylan Canterbury Baker.· I am an actual resident of SLO
County.· I live about seven miles from Diablo Canyon.
· · · · ·And one thing I have been very interested in
hearing is what are you also doing to address the
increased risk of seismic activity here?· Because, I
mean, now, in foresight we'd find it odd to build a
nuclear plant here in such a volatile zone.
· · · · ·And considering the storage is on-site is
unlikely to change for awhile, how is that going to be
addressed in the equation of keeping the nuclear waste
safely stored.· Thank you.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Okay.· We got the question.· Is
there anything else?
· · · · ·DYLAN CANTERBURY BAKER:· Just I am eager to
hear what you all have to say about this because I know
it's a concern of many people who live in SLO County and
live near it, and I go near Diablo Canyon pretty
frequently because I live in Avila Bay.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Okay.· Thank you very much for
your comment.
· · · · ·KARA WOODRUFF:· Chuck.
MR. ANDERS:· Yes, Kara.
· · · · ·KARA WOODRUFF:· Can Philippe give a brief
answer just on the seismic, like the bolting, and
maybe -- I guess we will be talking about the new casks
later in the evening --
· · · · ·PHILIPPE SOENEN:· Yeah.
· · · · ·KARA WOODRUFF:· -- but I think his question
also concerns existing casks.· Maybe you can do a brief
explanation on the seismic protections there.
· · · · ·PHILIPPE SOENEN:· So our system itself, I
should mention, would be we do have a modified
HI-STORM 100, it's seismically anchored.· They have
anchorage studs that go over 7 feet into the concrete,
and there's 16 of these studs around the base to prevent
any tip over.
· · · · ·The Nuclear Regulatory Commission looked at
those analyses and postulated a specter for our seismic
at the ISFSI.· Similar bedrock as the power plant is
built on.
· · · · ·So those were all analyzed and approved by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the -- being able to
withstand, with margin, any seismic events that would
happen at the site.
· · · · ·KARA WOODRUFF:· Thank you.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Thank you, Philippe.· Thank you,
Dylan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't locate the Zoom link for the April 20 meeting.

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.