What's up, I read your blogs on a regular basis. Your story-telling style is witty, keep up the
good work!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

MR. 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.

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

MR. GREENING:· ·Thank you.· First I'd like to second Scott Lathrop's comments.· Thanks to the Commission for hearing and taking in all of the public comment and to PG&E for making an effort to take a lot 20·a lot of those recommendations by ways to implement them.
I do have two questions.· One relative to the approval process on the casks by the NRC.· There is a public comment period in that process.· And my question on that is simply:· What consequence those public comments have?· Can they actually lead to some -- to changes in the project description to mitigation measures?
And then my second question -- and I want to be sure that Susan is on the same page with Tom with this. We saw what looked to me to be a very rushed schedule for approval.· If both the Planning Commission and the Supervisors are to approve this project by the end of 2022 there's normally at least two months between a Planning Commission action and a Supervisors' Appeal Hearing.· So that would be Planning Commission in October.· That's 11 months from now.· That presumes a completed final EIR with a 60-day comment period between the draft and the final.· That simply looks like an extremely rushed EIR process considering all that it has to look at.· That would, basically, put a draft EIR out in June, six months after the scoping period is done.
I would assert that what we most need from the EIR process is not speed but thoroughness.· And I don't see a -- how a schedule that presupposes a completed EIR -- final EIR by October can accommodate the needed thoroughness.
So, Tom -- I don't want to put Susan on the spot. I know this isn't your segment.· But I would like to know that Tom and Susan are on the same page with this. Thank you.
MR. JONES:· ·We're on the same chapter, I don't know we're on the same page, Eric.· And I tell you this. I think Susan was clear in her update earlier that -- that the county intends to publish its schedule for this process that's been revised around the scoping period. So I would say stay tuned for a couple of weeks and we'll hear more from the county on that schedule.
Our schedule doesn't change, though.· It assumes a pessimistic hearing.· We did build it off of our previous ads through the county and coastal processer. And at the end of the day we still look for that final approval three years from now, the California Coastal Commission.· And that's actually a longer schedule than our other projects have had.
To your first question, I really think there is a ·complaining or a combination of a couple different processes.· So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have a licensing action on the safety of the casks. It's federally preempted.· And that will be their exclusive jurisdiction.· That process will mean a licensing action.· But the land use and CEQA process for the construction of dry cask storage was for the entire project, for the loading of up to 138 casks for fuel at that site in all seven pads in perpetuity.· So that action before the County Board of Supervisors and Coastal Commission won't come back.· So for the future ·of dry cask storage it's a licensing action.
Then to your last point.· Does the NRC take public comment into account?· Yes, they do.· And there's multiple ways.· One, there is just straight public comment like people do at a hearing or a meeting like this.· And the second is they also have their own intervention process where people can achieve standing and participate in the licensing action.
So all of those things are run by the NRC not the utility.· I'm just familiar with them.· But that's laid out on the NRC's website as well.
MR. GREENING:· Thank you for clarifying that. And, again, I -- I will continue to advocate for thoroughness over speed when it comes to environmental review.

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

MR. GREENING:· 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.

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.

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. GILESPY: I've been a long-time resident in this area. I started fishing up here in 1970. I fished this coast offshore in the area of this composed development and know it very well and I'm also educated in oceanography and I'm concerned about the very interface with the water of the wind that normally would be transiting that area and the possibility of all the upwelling currents that drive the warm waters offshore and commence the prime production process of plankton and chlorophyl development and the basic process of growing food fish and just fish in general. This plant is 400 square miles. 200 of these gigantic windmills could have an effect on this extremely important aspect of the California coastline and especially at build-out if they went all the way up the coast. I can tell you when you interfere with the wind, the warm water comes in and mandates the area and it will also have a regional climate effect not only on the coastal communities, but as well as those inland and as well affect potential rain patterns and temperature patterns.

I guess I first got into this when I was looking for was there any study about this and I didn't see it. I had to get over the gag reflex of this grotesque development in this pristine ocean area and its potential effects could alter the very aspect of Ocean, which is a placid ocean that relies on wind patterns and wind to commence and continue at circulation. I don't know if I fell within that. I could probably go on, but thank you. This panel is very edifying and I appreciate their being part of it.

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MS. HARVEY: Thank you all for the opportunity to speak. Susan Harvey. I'm the chair of the Conservation Committee of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club and first I'd like to say that we are very strongly committed to very local impact reuse of the Parcel P whether it be recreational or low impact research facilities.

My next thing, the idea of an industrial port somewhere on the California Coast sort of shredded my brain and I started wondering about the transmission potential of the lines coming out of Morro Bay, what that capacity was and the transmission capacity coming out of Diablo and do the Morro Bay lines and the Diablo lines feed into each other. I think that's really what I was really curious about, especially with the concept the onshore facility that might be needed for wind. Thank you.

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MR. GREENING: All right.· Thank you. Yes. Thank you. I'm Eric Greening and excellent presentations. Obviously, a lot of issues raised and I think the previous speaker hit on something. If there were to be a residential or resort used, I'm almost positive the county would require a secondary egress. We're not just talking about a secondary route through Avila. We're talking about a complete secondary egress from the site. That in itself would have a normal -- enormous environmental impacts creating that. Certainly, if it were no longer a roadless stretch of coast northward from there, that would have enormous impacts and so wildfire issues obviously evacuation issues from radiological and so on, there would have to be more than one way out if there were people actually living there.

Relative to the wind energy, my understanding is current blades are made of unrecyclable materials that become waste products. Would that be the case with these absolutely enormous blades? What would their life cycle be? What would their duration be? What would their destination be once they cease to be useful? And I would advocate that Cal Poly and all other potential research partners look into bladeless options for harvesting wind energy. I understand that there are some increasing possibilities out there and I don't think we should just assume the word wind means turbines. There's marbled murrelets and wedge-tailed shearwaters and other birds that would be knocked out of sky by these blades and I think -- Anyway, I think definitely the whole characterization of future uses, of course, depends on the site being safe and there's a lot of information we need. My understanding is the county has not yet accepted the application as complete and some of it has to do with waste characterization and handling. Do we have any idea when the scoping period will be on the county's EIR? If there's anyone from the county to answer that, I would be appreciative. Thank you.

Public comment presented during August 25, 2021 Engagement Panel Meeting:

MS. JOHNSON: Thank you so much to the panel, especially Larry and Patrick. I am very interested in maintaining the use of the desalinization plant. I own two properties in Carlsbad and I'm very familiar with that plant. We really do need to balance out the consideration of a seven-mile pipeline versus saltwater intrusion for highly valuable ag land in the area Huasna, Oceano. I think we need to preserve that extra water resource. Carlsbad is operated by Poseidon It's at no cost to the taxpayers and I think you could probably get vendors to operate and provide the water through the desal plant. I'm excited about that.

Also would like to see some extra camping and glamping in the area. That's a beautiful area and I think that would be a light touch and could afford a lot of enjoyment for that area.

So those are my two -- I think the panel has been wonderful, very informative and I'm excited about learning more about this as we go ahead, but I really hope that the desal plant is repurposed and continued and we continue to learn and refine and figure out howto power that resource. So thank you very much.

Hello. I attended the August 25, 2021 Panel meeting regarding repurposing of Parcel P after decommissioning. I was quite horrified by the presentation by Richard Gollis from JLL. He relayed the "market assessment" of building a resort hotel, an RV park, marina, homes.... I don't know where he got his information, but this is NOT what the community wants. The DREAM Initiative of 2000 had support of 74.66% of the county voters to set aside the Diablo Canyon Lands for habitat preservation, agriculture, and public use upon closure of the plant. This Initiative was unanimously supported by the SLO Board of Supervisors, PG&E, and numerous community and environmental organizations. The Strategic Vision of the DCDEP based on community input confirms that the land be used for the common good. Parcel P, specifically, is to be used for educational purposes and production of clean energy.

Comment : Requesting Growth plan to recondition the Electrical and Water Generation Plant look at original purpose of the land dedication to the growth needs of the State ambitions to supply health and safety to the public supporting coastal and inland power supplies, finishing the original plant goals and adding addendum expansion by growth the size of the generation platform Support growth with advanced tech knowledge, then alter the reactors support to the growth of the clean energy systems while adding Water resource to the expansion with desalination facility current capacity and increase it's size to support local community growth in San Luis Obispo County. Positive growth and safety.

I understand Trevor Keith will be unavailable, but do believe informing the public of the likely (rather more extended than previously understood) timeline for processing the Coastal Development Permit and accomplishing the EIR will be important, especially if there is a prospect of the scoping period and hearings happening during the holiday period. Although it is always timely to put forward visions about future use scenarios, it is premature to choose one until we have seen robust alternatives analysis in the EIR. I would also like to see emphasis (and collaboration with Cal Poly) on researching bladeless options for harvesting wind energy.

Please pursue extending the license for this reactor, is it desperately needed to achieve our Carbon Reduction goals. I have heard recently CA is adding more Gas power to prevent Black Outs, and this will only get worse without Diablo Canyon online. We should learn from Germany who tried to increase their renewable power while also decommissioning their reactors, and are now dependent on Coal and Russian Gas to fill the gaps when renewables aren't able to produce. We need clean baseload power that is not weather dependent.

What is the estimated cost of repairs and upgrades to keep the plant open?

Because of our grid's increasing dependence on generators outside their planning jurisdiction, will the state and CPUC require SafStor for the site to preserve the option of restarting the reactors?
Who in CPUC will be held responsible if, after shutting down these reactors, power shortages result in loss of life?
Has CASIO identified in-state carbon-free generating capacity to at least replace DCNPP while maintaining grid reliability?

Why are we shutting down California's main source of clean power? "Replacing it with solar and wind" is not realistic, as that capacity would be built anyway, and we could take the methane "natural" gas plants offline instead.

I would like to propose that as part of the planned future decommissioning of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, the board consider converting the artificially protected open ocean area where Diablo takes in their coolant water, that the area be transitioned into a protected marine preserve which would allow recreational scuba divers the opportunity to swim and hike in that area (for a fee). I do not make this recommendation on a lightly. If you have ever been to Point Lobos in Carmel California you know they charge for entry/parking. They also charge for scuba dive teams, which they limit to 30 teams per day. The offer a limited number of dive team permits daily and they are often sold out weeks or months in advance, especially for weekends. Point Lobos is operated by the State Parks Department who also issue scuba diving passes via their website. Point Lobos charges $10 for parking per vehicle and another $30 for a dive team consisting of two divers (divers always use the buddy system). I do not know the max depth or contour profile of that specific area, but if it's more than 30' in some places, this could be a great means of both revenue and marketing for the state/county as well as an education tool for the California dive community. Scuba divers are a special breed of human being in that we always want to preserve the environment which we recreate and dive in. We are stewards of the ocean and the marine life contained within. We are guests, not residents. The ocean does not belong to us, yet we are responsible for its care and well being. I've been blessed to be part of the California Dive Community for the past six years, but unfortunately there are not many dive sites in our local area. I drive at least two hours North or South to reach a 'destination dive site'. Consider what it could do for the local San Luis Obispo Coastal community if we had a dive destination like none other on the West Coast right here in our local coastal waters.

Given mandated directions into alternative energy sources (wind, solar) that are known ahead of time to never fulfill the state's energy needs, why does it make sense to decommission a clean source when it is very likely needed to meet the needs of a greatly expanding population driven by CA's long standing population-based expansion economy - let alone switching from hydrocarbon fueled vehicles to electric vehicles in the near future? Decommissioning Diablo Canyon doesn't make any sense to me. Why does it to this commission?

The study on the cost of a pipeline to deliver “desal” water from the plant to Avila did not include an option to pump water into a tanker ship/ barge at the intake and transport the water to The CalPoly pier and pumping the water from the ship into the pipeline at Avila. This option of “tankering” large quantities of water avoids the capital cost of constructing a long pipe line and the o&m costs of pumping the water uphill. This option would allow water from DCPP to be obtained by ship when needed without the huge capital Cost of a long permanent pipeline.

I am a proposal for the repurpose of Diablo Canyon

After an 18 month delay the CPUC has finally issued a proposed decision in the decommission funding case for Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is pleased that several of our key recommendations for saving money and improving safety were adopted in this multi-billion dollar endeavor.

Please see attached release, which is also supplemented with our editorial replies to recent stories suggesting that the continued operation of Diablo Canyon can provide an answer to California’s energy conundrum. It can’t.