| May 25, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Public comment presented during the May 25, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:
· ·I'm Eric Greening.· And first, I -- I share both Marty Brown's observations and her question of, relative to the timing of removing the elements from the pool, I think the reason to do it sooner, rather than later, to the extent it
can be done safely, is because the potential for catastrophic emptying of the water from the pool.· And what would result from that is much more massive in terms of potential harm and spread of harm and distance than something happening once it is in the solid canisters and in the storage that's been explained by Orano.
· · ·My big question now -- thank you for the answer.· I think it was Tom Jones that answered the question relative to the county process in the event that they went for a license extension.
· · ·My other question relative to process is, if they went for a license extension, which I am not recommending -- it open all sorts of cans of worms -- what would happen to the NRC process relative to the canister?
· · ·It's obvious that the current plan is to allow the fuel elements to continue to be loaded and function until the end of the license and then begin to unload them.· And any license extension would mean some huge changes in all of that.
· · ·Would the present NRC process be halted and restarted? Would it somehow be modified in the process of continuing? What would happen to the NRC process relative to the high-level waste handling in the event that PG&E tried to secure a license extension?
· · ·Thank you very much.· And it's been a very informative evening.
| | | | |
| May 25, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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.
| | | | |
| May 25, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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.
| | | | |
| May 25, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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?
| | | | |
| May 24, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Re: "Spent Fuel" Nuclear Waste Storage:
I refer to my presentation to the Panel on February 23rd, 2019, also sent to you by e-mail attachment on February 20, 2019 at 8:06 pm.
In addition, I offer these comments:
I.) According to ORANO, the NUHOMS Cask Storage System allows for much shorter cooling times of the spent fuel assemblies (SFAs) in the pools before transfer to the ISFSI at decommissioning. On its website, ORANO praises the financial savings for utilities as a main consideration. But what about the safety of the community? Can we really rely on assurances by the cask manufacturer? So far, PG&E has always stressed that the minimum cooling time for SFAs newly removed from the reactors must be 7 years for high burn-up fuel!
Moreover, how can radiation leaks from the casks on the ISFSI be dealt with if the pools are no longer available?
II.) Re: Prolonged plant life after 2025:
I strongly agree with Jane Swanson's viewpoint on this issue: "Mothers for Peace: Stay the course on Diablo Canyon closure" in THE TRIBUNE, page 10 B on May 15th, 2022.
III.) In conclusion, Diablo should close as presently planned (2025) but the pools should stay open for an appropriate period of time, to allow for longer cooling of the SFAs under water (at least 7 Years) and easier handling of potential radiation leaks at the ISFSI.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely
Klaus Schumann
Member of the SLO County Nuclear Waste Management Committee, 1996 to 2002.
| | | | |
| May 20, 2022 | Other | why are we shutting down a plant that produces a huge amount of the states power before we anyting to replace it?
| | | | |
| May 3, 2022 | Other | Facilitator, Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel
May 3, 2022
Please include this email and attachments as a comment for the May 4, 2022 NRC Public Meeting set for San Luis Obispo, California.
Since early 2017, nonprofit intervenor Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP) has been sharply critical regarding the State of California plan to close California's largest generator by far and replace it mostly with Wyoming coal-fired generation.
This State of California plan is not in the public interest. Instead it serves narrow private interests. CGNP's criticisms have included numerous filings before regulatory and oversight bodies at the local, state, and federal level.
Per the three attachments, decision makers finally appear to be paying attention to CGNP.
CGNP sincerely looks forward to an upcoming announcement regarding the dissolution of the Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Panel as the plant continues to supply safe, reliable, cost-effective and vital emission-free power (and desalinated water) to California.
Sincerely,
Gene Nelson, Ph.D. CGNP Legal Assistant
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP)
1375 East Grand Ave Ste 103 #523
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420-2421
(805) 363 - 4697 cell
Government@CGNP.org email
https://CGNP.org website
| Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. | TINYURL.COM | Experts-Weigh-in-on-Seismic-Safety-at-Diablo-Canyon-in-Letter-to-Newsom-05-02-22.pdf | With-Emissions-Soaring-Democratic-Governors-Sour-On-Plans-To-Shut-Down-Nuclear-Power.pdf |
| April 22, 2022 | Safety | Attached, please find Holtec International’s letter retracting the letter of April 6.
| | | 301676cn-Withdrawal-of-Holtec-International-Response-to-PGE-Letter.pdf | |
| April 21, 2022 | Other | Hi! I'm a reporter with KCBX Public Radio in SLO, I'm doing a story on last night's panel and I'm wondering if I'm able to pull audio from the meeting recording on the website? I think I would mainly use commissioner's or PG&E representative's comments, but possibly public commenters if they are associated with an advocacy group.
Please let me know if I'm able to treat this as public record/have permission to use audio.
Thanks,
Ben Purper
| KCBX | kcbx.org | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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.
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Safety | My statement tonight:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the panel. I would like to begin with an apology to PG&E, this Panel and the local community for the tone of my letter of April 6. You see in the last 15 years we have had twenty nuclear units that changed their dry storage system from Orano to Holtec and never the other way around, until we received this shock. We care deeply about Diablo Canyon Plant and the community, and we have Safety and Technical concerns. Once notified, I traveled to SLO and had the pleasure to meet with community leaders including three members of this panel and learned of a unique DC ISC which consists of eminent Nuclear Scientists and Engineers. Absent a meaningful dialogue with PG&E leadership, we will communicate our specific Safety and Technical concerns with the ISC this week. Again, apologies for the tone of the letter and thank you for your time.
| Holtec International | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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?
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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.
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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.
| SLO Mothers for Peace | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:
SHERRY LEWIS:· Okay.· Can you hear me now?
Okay.· Good.· Talking about the crawler that goes into
the vents and down -- up within the canister, when you
inspect a canister or a cask, whichever it is, when you
inspect that, do you send this crawler down through all
the vents or just one vent per canister?
· · · · ·PHILIPPE SOENEN:· We -- we do it in quadrants.
We go through all the upper vents; so we have -- we get
the entire circumference of the canister.
· · · · ·SHERRY LEWIS:· Thank you.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Thank you.
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:
BRENDON PITTMAN:· Okay.· Thank you so much.· My
name is Brendon Pittman.· I live in Berkley, California.
My last name is P-i-t-t-m-a-n.· I am a civil engineer,
just generally curious about the plant, and PG&E, and
operations in general.
· · · · ·It's a two-part question.· I apologize if maybe
this -- one of these questions will be addressed later.
· · · · ·But the first question is for Orano, and it's
regarding movement of a cask.· And the question is have
you ever removed a cask from your storage system once
they are put in place?
· · · · ·And my second question is for PG&E, and I'm not
sure who this would be appropriate for, maybe
Ms. Wayliff (phonetically).· I hope I got that right.
Forgive me if I mispronounced that.
· · · · ·And my question is did PG&E pick the best
technical system for the plant?· Thank you.
· · · · ·TOM JONES:· I will address that at the
appropriate time on the agenda.
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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.
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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.
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:
SHARON HAMMOND:· Thank you.· Hello.· My name is
Sharon Hammond, H-a-m-m-o-n-d; and I am with an
organization called the "Society Library," and we
organize collective information around a given topic and
then organize that information into debate maps for
educational and public consumption.
· · · · ·And from that regard I have to give absolute
gratitude to the panel and to the safety counsel as well
for your fantastic organization and information
presentation.
· · · · ·My question now is, given the recent OIG report
that called into question the efficacy of oversight,
and, particularly, the efficacy of existing inspections
of Diablo Canyon facilities and risk-significant
equipment, are there any plans to, say, preemptively do
additional internal inspections or in some way
communicate to the public that areas that may have been
overlooked or not inspected as carefully as we would
have hoped are getting that attention?
And, specifically, you know, those
risk-significant systems and spent fuel areas.· Are
there -- are there any plans to more aggressively
monitor, inspect, and communicate that to the public
perhaps?
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Anyone, can you address that? I
guess that's it.
· · · · ·Go ahead, Philippe.
· · · · ·PHILIPPE SOENEN:· There seems to be a lot of
focus on operational activity.· For the topic here we
are talking about our dry cask storage systems, and as
we talked about the seismic design for the -- our
current system and then there will be presentation for
the new system that will be implemented, I think we will
take note of what the comment as far as they relate to
the OIG and operational inspections.
| Society Library | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Other | 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.
| Avila Valley Advisory Council | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:
SUSAN STRACHEN:· Good evening.· Wonderful to
see all of you in person.· I'm Susan Strachen,
S-t-r-a-c-h-e-n.· I am with the San Luis Obispo County
Planning and Building Department.
· · · · ·And I have a question.· In the agenda it talked
about changes to the ISFSI structure, and I don't --
this is late for me, I am usually asleep by now, and so
maybe I nodded off -- but I was wondering if that could
be talked about tonight or if it could be discussed at
the next meeting.
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· I was distracted when you were
talking; so I didn't catch the question.
· · · · ·SUSAN STRACHEN:· Okay.· There was -- on the
agenda it talks about changes to the ISFSI structure
containment berms, and I didn't hear that talked about
in the presentation tonight; so I was wondering if you
could touch base on that next month.
| San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:
BRUCE SETTERS:· Thank you.· I have a couple of
questions.· I guess I just want to ask three or four
questions and hope the right person stands up and
responds to each one; so I am not sure exactly who to
address them to.
· · · · ·There was mention of some of the assemblies
that need to be loaded into the new cask systems having
been damaged.· I am just curious about a little bit more
detail about what that damage entailed.
· · · · ·There was apparently a failure on the part of
the prior contractor to load the proper pattern of hot
and cool assemblies into the casks, and that seems to me
to be a grievous error, and I would like to hear a
little bit about how that kind failure mode might be
mitigated and if there's checks and double checks and
it's not one guy looking at the plan.
· · · · ·How is the 4.2 kilowatt heat level determined
to be the safe threshold?· I understand the 50 kilowatt
total heat level of the assembly or the cask is
considered to be kind of the maximum threshold.
· · · · ·A question was asked of the engineer involved,
like, what's the worst thing that can happen?· And he
basically gave a fairly general answer that bad things
happen.· I would like a little bit more specific answer
about what those bad things might be.
· · · · ·And, you know, why would we risk accelerating
the schedule by a year, let's say.· I mean, I understand
there is money to be saved.· That's good for
everybody -- the diversified uses and repurposing can be
accelerated, et cetera.· But why would we not just give
a greater margin of error to adding another year?
· · · · ·To me, I personally have no emotional
investments in having this be a showcase of how fast we
can do it, you know.
· · · · ·So to me it's like -- I don't want to break a
world record in that category; so explain a little bit
more about what the cost tradeoff is
there.· Just slowing down the speed a little, if that's
possible.· Thank you.
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | 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.
| | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:
PIERRE ONEID:· Okay.· This is Pierre Oneid, and
I am with Holtec International.· We are headquartered in
Florida with our factories in New Jersey.
· · · · ·And I wanted to thank you for the opportunity
to speak to the panel.· I would like to begin with an
apology to PG&E, the panel, and the local community for
the tone of my letter of April 6th.
· · · · ·You see, in the last 15 years we have had 20
nuclear units that changed their dry storage system from
Orano to Holtec and never the other way around until we
received this shock.
· · · · ·We care deeply about Diablo Canyon Plant and
the community, and we have safety and technical
concerns.
· · · · ·Once notified I traveled to San Luis Obispo and
had the pleasure to meet with community leaders,
including three members of this distinguished panel, and
learned of a unique Diablo Canyon Independent Safety
Committee which consists of eminent nuclear scientists
and engineers.
· · · · ·Absent a meaningful dialogue with PG&E
leadership, we will communicate our specific safety and
technical concerns with the IFC this week.
· · · · ·Again, apologies for the tone of the letter,
and thank you for your time.
| Holtec International | | | |
| April 20, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Public comment presented during April 20, 2022 Engagement Panel Meeting:
JILL ZAMEK:· Hi.· Jill Zamek, Z-a-m-e-k. I
live in Arroyo Grande.· I remain confused about the
material that I have read.
· · · · ·The press material states that Orano's extended
optimized storage system has been licensed for use at
other facilities and approved by the NRC, and then it
goes on to say that the system design includes enhanced
thermal and seismic capabilities, which require
additional NRC safety reviews.
· · · · ·And then I'm listening tonight, and it sounds
like there needs to be some physical modifications made
in order to accommodate the increased thermal and
seismic requirements.
· · · · ·And Holtec's response in that letter stated
that the NRC review affects the schedule, not the
already robust license capabilities of our system.
There seems to be a contradiction there.
· · · · ·It seems that the system, the Orano system has
to be modified, and that hasn't been approved yet by the
NRC; is that correct?
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Someone is going to answer that.
· · · · ·RAHEEL HAROON:· That is correct.· The system
does need to be modified a little bit, and it needs to
go through an amendment process with the NRC.
· · · · ·ROGER MAGGI:· So if I could respond.· It's the
same module performed at SONGS for the amount of
acceleration that's going to be over 50 percent
higher --
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Mic, please.
· · · · ·ROGER MAGGI:· -- (indiscernible.)
· · · · ·MR. ANDERS:· Hold on.· The answer is correct.
| | | | |
| April 15, 2022 | Panel Website | I can't locate the Zoom link for the April 20 meeting.
| | | | |
| April 6, 2022 | Spent Fuel Storage | Enclosed, please find Holtec International response to PG&E's letter today, titled "Notification to unsuccessful bidder".
| Holtec International | | 301676cm-Holtec-International-Response-to-PGE-Letter.pdf | |
| March 22, 2022 | Other | 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
| Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility | a4nr.org | VT-NDCAP_Approved_Advisory_Opinion_2022-02-28_DOE_RFI_Consent-Based_Siting_Response_Letterhead_0.pdf | |
| March 9, 2022 | Lands | I would be interested in a modern Sanitarium on 50 acres for the mentally ill. Young people are surprised when I tell them that not so long ago we did not have people live on the streets and beg for money on street corners. loitering and panhandling were illegal. The mentally ill were placed in sanitariums. Sanitariums did have some problems but we could try again and do better. Nursing homes have problems but we do not turn seniors out into the streets. The State giving local government money to solve the problems is not working. Nobody is happy with the homeless situation so why not give a small portion of serene land and try a new direction.
| | | | |
| February 22, 2022 | Economic Impacts | 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.
| | | | |
| February 15, 2022 | Other | The site states that transcripts will be available about 2 weeks after the meeting, but the Nov 3rd transcript has yet to be posted. Can you please provide a date in which you expect the transcript to be on the DCDEP website?
| Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility | | | |
| February 10, 2022 | Repurposing of Facilities | Could DCPP faculty be repurposed into a thorium-fueled reactor ?
| | | | |
| December 16, 2021 | Lands | What's up, I read your blogs on a regular basis. Your story-telling style is witty, keep up the
good work!
| | linky.nu | | |
| December 6, 2021 | Environmental Impacts | 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
| | | Essay-Works-Cite.pdf | |
| December 2, 2021 | Other | Hello. There is a tremendous push by some who are advocating for the continued operation of Diablo (which I vehemently oppose). I have also heard a rumor that PG&E is in behind-closed-doors conversations / negotiations with investors will to take this on. I would like to know if there is any truth to this. Is the Panel wasting its time? Is PG&E planning to renege on its agreement to close in 2024 and 2025?
I would like an official response from PG&E. Thank you.
| NA | | | |
| November 22, 2021 | Other | 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.
| Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility | cacurrent.com | Diablo-is-done-California-Currents.pdf | |
| November 11, 2021 | Repurposing of Facilities | The chosen "hybrid mode" of decommissioning in my opinion is basically bad, bad for anyone who cares for that land....but it's good for bean corners at pg&e HQ in San Francisco.
I've been involved in way too many large construction jobs and I know how this goes.... PG&E takes on the role of a General Contractor(GC) and they put "everything" out to bid (getting subcontractors).... they contract the "lowest bidder", PERIOD...... Any responsibility is contractually conveyed to the subcontractor(lowest-bidder)...... You can see that I didn't want to get in-the-face of Erik Daniels over this reality of construction (which I'm sure he knows).....and the SF HQ has specificaly selected decades ago.
In my opinion ,this mode is even worse than the last two listed inthat in that it allows PG&E to hire subs who are not licensed in the nuclear industry.
Re labor: the General Contractor never gets to tell the sub who the sub is going to hire, unless...... there is a negotiated labor contract in place such as with Union negotiations.
I think you have a history with the plant I need to make it clear that I think all the people at the Diablo site are extremely well-intended, salt-of-the-earth people who have made a home in San Luis Obispo County... Again, to be very clear the group of people who are up at San Francisco HQ for pg&e are mostly accountants and lawyers...... Frankly, they view us like a bunch of expendable hillbillies..... and to make no mistake about it, the bean-counters at the SF ,HQ call all the shots . In my opinion
| | | | |
| November 8, 2021 | Other | Please see the following editorial of the Sacramento Bee:
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=3a443188-db22-49f1-94d8-f9a38ff2cacb
| Alliance for Nuclear Responsibilty | pagesuite.com | | |
| November 3, 2021 | Other | 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.
| | | | |
| November 3, 2021 | Transportation Impacts | Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:
MR. KRASNER:· Hi there, everybody on the panel. Thank you for this opportunity.
I live in Pismo Beach.· And my questions are going to be focused on the Pismo Beach Rail Yard and rail transfer construction.· In a recent notice in one of the local papers it indicates there are three additional locations for potential rail transfer sites, one of which is the Pismo Beach Materials Handling Facility on Price Canyon Road.· Has that facility gone through CEQA and the EIR requirements to be approved?· That's one question.
I do see that a company in San Luis Obispo by the name of Precision Estimating Services has already built out 20,000 square foot hazardous waste transfer building, installed 3100 feet of new track and done some significant upgrades on roadways and traffic signals.
This facility is very close to a middle school and also quite close to residential properties.· So I am alarmed by the location and the potential for problems. And want to know what has been done to mitigate such problems as they could come up.· Thank you.
| | | | |
| November 3, 2021 | Other | Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:
MR. BROWN: Good evening, panel.· My name is Ben Brown, San Luis Obispo.· I had a comment and a related question.
My comment is:· I'm very concerned about the removal of this large amount of baseload clean power that's local to our area, especially in light of the COP26 Conference that's going on right now as we all race to reduce carbon emissions in our grids.
My question is: What are plans by PG&E to provide a similar level of clean baseload power for the Central Coast after the removal of the Diablo Canyon asset?
Thank you.
| | | | |
| November 3, 2021 | Environmental Impacts | 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.
| | | | |
| November 3, 2021 | Other | 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.
| | | | |
| November 3, 2021 | Other | Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:
MR. BROWN:· All right.· I guess I'm muted.· Well, listen, as a former member the Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel I took particular pleasure in listening to Tom Jones' report on how PG&E has incorporated guidance from the panel into to their planning.· It's extensive.· And for me it's very gratifying to see that.
I'd like to assert the following point:· These positions from the panel just didn't come from the minds of the panel members.· It was a result of an extensive engagement with the public, of conducting multiple public hearings, taking input from the public and incorporating that into the thinking about our recommendations.· And I would just like to encourage the public to continue that process.· We're a long way from finishing this.· And also to compliment PG&E for creating the process in the first place and really paying attention.· So thank you very much.
| | | | |
| November 3, 2021 | Environmental Impacts | Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:
MS. HARVEY:· Thank you.· I appreciate the·opportunity. So Susan Harvey. I'm in the county near Paso Robles. And I'm commenting on behalf of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club. And I have a couple of questions.
·When you refer to the intermodal containers I'm wondering if they will be sealed in waterproof -- in water tight while they are being transported.
So Susan Harvey.· I'm in the county near And I'm commenting on behalf of the Santa of the Sierra Club.· And I have a couple.
And then my next question is:· The permitting for the use of the port for barging, will that permit be exclusively for and by decommissioning through 2039?· In other words, will that be the only activity that is being permitted at that port site until 2039?
MR. JONES:· ·Yeah.· So your first question the simple answer is yes.· They are watertight and they are sealed.· They are robust shipping containers.
The second question:· Will that be the only ·activity?· No.· We currently run boats out of there for a marine monitoring program.· And then prior to 9-11 the -- we -- it was a harbor of safe refuge.· And so it was common to see three or four maybe five fishing vessels·just come in our harbor and take anchors during the night or the morning, and then go back out and start fishing.· So that use could occur independent of this activity.
What we're trying to do is -- part of our Environmental Impact Report bounds the impacts from that 10· ·process, including the shipping and transportation.
Secondarily, because we would be conducting some construction in the original jurisdiction area that will be subject to the California Coastal Commission to ·approve that modification as it will also be part of a new lease with the California State Lands Commission. So, again, the county leading the Environmental Impact Report, that document is going to serve all three of those processes.· So the county has the lead in the analysis and coordinates with those other agencies about what level of detail they will require.
So to take that one step further.· When we make our application for the lease with California State Lands Commission there's different levels of engineering diagrams and design.· And we'll be at what's called the 30 percent level.· So we'll have more than a conceptual design of how that structure will be modified to accommodate barging kind of transportation.
Now, if you think repurposing and succession, anything that can launch -- you know, that can successfully convey a 25-ton container onto a barge 100 feet out can certainly launch any recreational vessel into the water.· So the opportunities there will be beyond what's in the application.
MR. ANDERS:· Thank you, Susan.· Did that answer your questions?
MS. HARVEY:· Yeah.· Thanks.· I guess.· I think I'm not quite sure what all my questions are.· But thank you very much.
| Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club | | | |
| November 3, 2021 | | Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:
MR. GREENING:· ·Thank you.· First I'd like to second Scott Lathrop's comments.· Thanks to the Commission for hearing and taking in all of the public comment and to PG&E for making an effort to take a lot 20·a lot of those recommendations by ways to implement them.
I do have two questions.· One relative to the approval process on the casks by the NRC.· There is a public comment period in that process.· And my question on that is simply:· What consequence those public comments have?· Can they actually lead to some -- to changes in the project description to mitigation measures?
And then my second question -- and I want to be sure that Susan is on the same page with Tom with this. We saw what looked to me to be a very rushed schedule for approval.· If both the Planning Commission and the Supervisors are to approve this project by the end of 2022 there's normally at least two months between a Planning Commission action and a Supervisors' Appeal Hearing.· So that would be Planning Commission in October.· That's 11 months from now.· That presumes a completed final EIR with a 60-day comment period between the draft and the final.· That simply looks like an extremely rushed EIR process considering all that it has to look at.· That would, basically, put a draft EIR out in June, six months after the scoping period is done.
I would assert that what we most need from the EIR process is not speed but thoroughness.· And I don't see a -- how a schedule that presupposes a completed EIR -- final EIR by October can accommodate the needed thoroughness.
So, Tom -- I don't want to put Susan on the spot. I know this isn't your segment.· But I would like to know that Tom and Susan are on the same page with this. Thank you.
MR. JONES:· ·We're on the same chapter, I don't know we're on the same page, Eric.· And I tell you this. I think Susan was clear in her update earlier that -- that the county intends to publish its schedule for this process that's been revised around the scoping period. So I would say stay tuned for a couple of weeks and we'll hear more from the county on that schedule.
Our schedule doesn't change, though.· It assumes a pessimistic hearing.· We did build it off of our previous ads through the county and coastal processer. And at the end of the day we still look for that final approval three years from now, the California Coastal Commission.· And that's actually a longer schedule than our other projects have had.
To your first question, I really think there is a ·complaining or a combination of a couple different processes.· So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have a licensing action on the safety of the casks. It's federally preempted.· And that will be their exclusive jurisdiction.· That process will mean a licensing action.· But the land use and CEQA process for the construction of dry cask storage was for the entire project, for the loading of up to 138 casks for fuel at that site in all seven pads in perpetuity.· So that action before the County Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission won't come back.· So for the future ·of dry cask storage it's a licensing action.
Then to your last point.· Does the NRC take public comment into account?· Yes, they do.· And there's multiple ways.· One, there is just straight public comment like people do at a hearing or a meeting like this.· And the second is they also have their own intervention process where people can achieve standing and participate in the licensing action.
So all of those things are run by the NRC not the utility.· I'm just familiar with them.· But that's laid out on the NRC's website as well.
MR. GREENING:· Thank you for clarifying that. And, again, I -- I will continue to advocate for thoroughness over speed when it comes to environmental review.
| | | | |
| November 3, 2021 | | Public comment presented during November 3, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:
MR. GREENING:· Thank you.· I just wanted to get some clarification.· I thought I heard that the panel was going to have a field trip to San Onofre, is that correct, where you'll physically actually be touring the facilities there?
And my question is:· Is that going to be a public meeting in any way?· Either that we would be able to be present virtually or that people would be present on the·site physically?
And, again, I have the concern that being on a tour only with the utility operator gives you certainly a large part of the picture.· But you don't have a complete picture unless the public is also able to participate and speak to you.· And, particularly, I would assume people in the Samuel Lawrence Foundation 10· ·would be very interested in participating and having their concerns heard.· It might provide some lessons for us in terms of things to avoid.
So tell -- if you can explain more about the circumstances, the meeting, and its openness to the public and whether the proceedings of that meeting will somehow be available to the public after it has happened.· Thank you.
MR. JONES:· ·Chuck, I can address that.· This is Tom Jones.· So no, it is not open to the public.· It's an intense tour of the physical decommissioning of the power plant.· So everyone will be wearing personal protective equipment.· They will be escorted by experts from Southern California Edison.· And a pretty hazardous industrial environment.· So it's not going to be a public meeting.· And it is by invitation to their private property.
I will say that the panel will clearly get an update.· And they do trip reports.· So the panel has benchmarks; San Onofre.· It's traveled to Rancho Seco in the past and offered those updates to the public for what they have seen with regard to the -- any entity, whether it's Samuel Lawrence or anyone else, the panel is free to invite who they wish when we build out an agenda for a meeting.
MR. GREENING:· ·Thank you.· So I will repeat the comment from earlier in the meeting that I think that the Samuel Lawrence Foundation should be invited to a future meeting, one of your regular public meetings as well as the utility itself to kind of give their perspective as well as the utility's perspective on lessons that we can take with us in terms of our own experience that is happening in ensuing years that they have been through already.· Thank you so much.
| | | | |
| November 1, 2021 | Repurposing of Facilities | 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
| Perryman Technologies Research LLC | adobe.com | | |
| September 30, 2021 | Community Outreach Process | A few weeks ago David Victor of the SONGS Engagement Panel was invited to make a presentation on the post-operation facts of nuclear power decommissioning to the National Academies of Science and Engineering (NASEM). It was part of a 4-hour, multi-part presentation. You can view the entire series (worthwhile indeed) at https://livestream.com/nasem/events/9775108
However, for the sake of convenience and time commitments of the DCDEP, it is possible to simply view David VIctor’s 15 minutes presentation at https://livestream.com/nasem/events/9775108/videos/225597509
Go to the link about and navigate the player bar to the 2 hour and 33 minute mark into the afternoon session.
| Alliance for Nuclear Responsbibility | a4nr.org | | |
| September 29, 2021 | Safety | Please see attached comments and report of David A. Lochbaum regarding safety and security of ISFSI facilities.
| Alliance for Nuclear Responsiblity | | 20210927-songs-lochbaum-commission-isfsi-bdbee.pdf | |
