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

MR. DOWNING:· My name is Matt Downing. I'm the community development director for the City of Pismo Beach. First of all, take the opportunity to thank everybody on the panel. It always makes me happy seeing my fellow community members participating in things like this. That really means something to the greater community. I've spoken to the group before about this process and we -- I just wanted to reiterate some of my comments. The desalinization option is great, but I will say that we do have our project, Central Coast Blue, that we are continuing to move forward with. Granted, it's hit some speed bumps as of late, but we are confident that we can work with our partner agencies to smooth all of that all out and that will provide us with the recycled water for our south county area that we need.

I think it would be a terrible waste to get rid of the marina. I know we've hinted at that in the past. So I'll just put a plug in there. Anything we can do to promote that marina would be a unique opportunity. Having some type of commercial use out there, theglamping idea is good, but as we know, anything with that large commercial draw is going to bring -- because of the remoteness that several of you spoke about is going to bring what it always brings and that's traffic. So really addressing the traffic issues, having one way in and one way out to that area currently is going to be the foremost for our community, as we do see vehicles back up onto our local roadways from large events out in Avila.· So just wanted to make those comments and thank you everybody for their time this evening and have a wonderful rest of the night.

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

JANE SWANSON: Number one, given there are 750 acres in Parcel P and given that this meeting is about the repurposing of Parcel P, I was very surprised to hear the real estate consultant refer to -- I thought he referred to thousands of acres or did I misunderstand that? I may have a misunderstanding. So I thought clarification when he was talking about glamping and all these touristy things, is that within the 750 acres or is that beyond?

Second question. Yet to come in this meeting is PG&E's update of the new nuclear fuel storage system with discussion by panel members to follow. I don't see on the agenda that there is an opportunity for the public to ask questions following the panel discussion and I'm hoping there is. So I would like clarification on that. Will the public be able to ask questions or clarifications following that report?

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

MR. SHOULDERS: I have several comments. I'll be curt.

On the windmill issue, the 1920 Marina Act or the Jones Act requires the ships that would install these installations to be made in the U.S. and carried by U.S.-owned and crude vessels and there's no such huge ship that can install these devices in the United States at all and for the very small number of East Coast installations, they had to have a Dutch ship -- I think it was Dutch -- come to Canada to take all of the equipment and install it because there's no such ship in the United States. So I think when we talk about the feasibility of installing a few of these on the West Coast, we need to be aware of the fact there's no way to install it as I stated.

Secondly, on the desal issue, 18 months ago or two years ago, this panel had a long presentation by the engineer at Diablo Canyon that's in charge of the water and a representative of the south county organization that's responsible for water and that south county person said he had no interest whatsoever in taking Diablo desal water because of the cost issue and I'm surprised no one seems to be aware of that.

Thirdly, when we talk about the massive amount of renewable energy we need in this state to meet this goal that the state has put forth, and I listen to the galatial pace of accomplishing getting windmills approved, it doesn't support the kind of goal that the state has. You know, this is an existential climate change and we need to do a World War II kind of thing. So we need to cut through the bureaucracy. And, finally, the access road, I'm particularly familiar with the -- if you look at coming up the slope from the entrance, there's lots of slippage that's occurred over time and there's a massive threat there and an expense to keep that road open and that needs to be considered when we talk about using any installations further up north from the entrance point. I'm done.

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

MR. BROWN: Okay. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the whole panel and the speakers for an excellent program tonight. I very enjoyed it. I really have a couple questions, no comments. The question I had, maybe a missed the content of the speakers from the California Energy Commission, but I'm wondering what is the timing for proposals to be received for the offshore wind?

My second question may be directed to Tom Jones. Knowing that one of the aspects of the offshore wind project that ties in with the decommissioning of Diablo is making use of the power distribution system and I'm wondering, Tom, have you received any feelers whatsoever from anybody, any potential wind farm operation about tapping into the distribution? That's all I had.

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.

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.

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?

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.

At a recent meeting of the Engagement Panel, Dr. Peter Lam was scheduled to respond to questions and concerns, but time ran short so that never happened. It was stated that a special meeting would be scheduled to allow Dr. Lam to share his expertise. When will that happen? I don't see it on a schedule of future meetings.

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. KINSINGER: Hi. My name is Debbie Kinsinger I'm a CEQA consultant from the San Diego area, most of my experience with forest service, fish and wildlife service and things like that.

I have a lot of questions about the interim consolidated storage idea. First of all, the one that's already been brought up about that there's no long-term site, and as far as I understood, that this wasn't an option until we had that that somebody else explained better.

So, second, when -- I think it was Rodney was explaining about the safety of the casks and about their transportability, and just from what I've been learning in San Diego with the casks that we have here, they're too long to be put on -- on a rail car and they're also too heavy for a rail to support. So when he talked about, you know, transporting these all the time, we've been doing it for years, to my knowledge, nothing like the type of casks that are going to be storing these fuels has ever been transported. And he talked about being able to demonstrate that they could be repackaged. To my knowledge, we don't know that they can be repackaged. We have an example of a cask that -- and how it could be used, but it's an example that doesn't have fuel in it and so many questions that when -- I've heard a couple of times people talk about this whole idea about interim storage and how we are going to move this material off site and I think that there's been some misrepresentation about what is possible to do based on what has been done. That's not consistent to what we're going to try and do.

So what has been done is low level transportation of low level, not high burn-up type of fuels, and in containers that are not heavy casks. Somebody said -- I thought there was something like 72,000 pounds per cask and I'm not sure that that's accurate. That's just something I remember off the top of my head, but anyway, there's so many questions and when I listen to Rodney speak, it sounds so great, wow, here's a great solution, but just what I have learned about this in the past is, one, that interim consolidated storage is not feasible and, two -- or it's not legal, and, two, that a lot of the things he said we've been doing and that it's -- that we're able to do is not -- we're not able to do those things with the type of casks that we have and the type of fuel that they are enclosing.· So --

ZEEK:· Excuse me.· Your two-minute time is up.

MS. KINSINGER: Thank you. I'm looking forward to scoping meetings where we can bring this up and hopefully make better choices.

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. PULIDO: Thank you very much. I just have a couple questions and thank you so much for letting me participate. They're basic questions. Maybe you can help direct where they should be addressed, but I hear 250,000 years as far as a half life for the radiation and I'm hearing 80 years for the casks. I guess my
question is is that what provisions are being made for future contractors years and years down the road if they go bankrupt? And I'm speaking from the reference of oil facilities and oil wells where they're abandoned and bankrupt oil companies just walk away. I'd like to know is that something that's going to be addressed

And the second question I have is the current location, I understand additional casks are going to be put at that same pad, if you will, but what is the sea level of that and what studies have been done as far as a potential tsunami? I know there's been earthquake studies. Thank you very much.

Public comment presented during May 26, 2021 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MS. SWANSON: Okay. So I'm Jane Swanson. I live in San Luis Obispo. I hope that is all I'm supposed to say about myself. So I'll keep it brief. First of all, I really want to compliment and thank very much the members of the Engagement Panel. This is volunteer work and the number of hours they put in are beyond my comprehension. I've attended almost all of the meetings over the years. I'm very impressed with them. So I want to thank the current, past and future members of the panel.

Secondly, I really want to second the suggestion of Linda Seeley that a workshop be held that includes Dr. Lam because we didn't get a chance to hear as much from him as he has to offer. Not just Dr. Lam, but also, you know, I would want PG&E and the county to be present at that meeting.· So that would be very valuable. I very much appreciated the workshops held in February of 2019 on the spent fuel storage. That was very hopefully, also.

And then a question, which might be answered at some other time, of Rod McCollum of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He was very optimistic and advocating of consolidated interim storage, but I am aware that that project violates federal law because federal law states that interim storage may not happen until and unless there is a permanent repository. So I'm quite mystified why there's this brouhaha about consolidated interim storage because I don't see any permanent repository on the horizon. So I just want to make sure everybody listening to this meeting is aware of the fact that consolidated interim storage in New Mexico and Texas is not a legal proposition. So I don't understand why that's even being put out there. So I'll let it go at that and let other people have their turn. Thank you.

I look forward to wind and solar generation of energy becoming the truly renewable power source for the
Central Coast . When comparing nuclear generation with its aftermath of eternally toxic radioactive waste,
there's no contest.
There are over 80,000 tons of radioactive waste nationally and this amount will grow while these 93 active
nuclear plants make more day by day. Transporting it across the country to New Mexico and Texas is not the answer. The governors of these two states have written emphatically they don't want it. In fact, the State of
New Mexico has sued the NRC and the U.S Government for their failure to fulfill the mandates of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983.
Thirty Indigenous tribes have been directly affected by in situ mining and leaching of uranium to make
Yellow Cake for fuel in nuclear reactors. The immense amount of tailings left on or near reservations have
contaminated groundwater. There are 1,500 uranium mines in New Mexico alone -- one third of which have been abandoned. There is no disposal -- only displacement. Neighborhoods of people of color and the poor have historically been targets for toxic waste. CIS may not be "interim" but forever.
PG&E ratepayers have paid billions over 40 years for its waste storage. It's "our"waste because we have used the power it produced. Our billion dollar investment should be used to build the safest, most robust
casks, housing and siting that is monitorable, manageable and secure as close to its source as possible. MOVE IT ONCE to the final repository when it is established.
"We must do what's best for future generations."

Dear Diablo Canyon Commission,

In light of the recent hacking of the South East US pipeline, what new security measures are you taking to prevent a ransom hack & shut down of the plant?

Sincerely,

JP Drayer
Cayucos

After the units are defueled, will the Emergency Diesel Generators continue to be maintained as Tech Spec equipment, will the periodic surveillance intervals on the diesel generators and/or surveillance methodology change, will the switchyard arrangement change, will the number of in-service transmission lines to off-site power be permanently reduced, and until dry cask storage is completed, how will a power source be assured to the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System in the event of a Loss of Offsite Power, Station Blackout, or an un-postulated event?

You are perhaps aware of this latest series of studies and papers delivered by SCE (San Onofre) as a result of a lawsuit and settlement arising from their Coastal Development Permit case before the Coastal Commission some years ago. It outlines various strategies and options for accelerated removal of spent fuel from the San Onofre site including interim storage and a renewal of the federal attempt at a permanent, national repository. Nonetheless, and for those panel and community members who might not have been informed about this, I am sharing the link to the home page for the entire study (in three volumes):

https://www.songscommunity.com/strategic-plan-for-relocating-spent-fuel/spent-nuclear-fuel-solutions-a-fresh-approach

The power plant shouldd be converted to a much needed marina, boatyard, and educational facility. The location is perfect for the following reasons. A break wall is already installed as is a boat launch ramp. Which could help with Coastal Commission approval. The location is between Morro Bay and Port San Luis. The new boatyard can service the commerical and recreational fleet of both harbors. This will provide much needed jobs and boost the local marine economy, which is struggling to put it lightly. A marina will encourage more local boating. This will lead to a demand for new boats, that can be built on site by a local boat builder. National boat companies will establish a dealerships. Boat Brokers will open up offices to supply the demand. This will provide revenue for the marine trades. A dedicated education center that teaches naval architecture, marine engineering, boat building, repair, and seamanship. A program like this would be welcome locally and heralded through out the state. The program can be either through Cuesta or Cal Poly. This is a plus for attracting much need blue collar and white collar jobs such as Naval Architects, Artisans, Educators, Craftsmen, Engineers, and Technicians. The new marina could be the home port for the fleet of the offshore wind farm. The commercial fisherman can have a place to haul out with qualified marine technicians and to moor their vessel in a safe location. The facility could house a storage facilty and a repair shop for commercial fishing equipment. A dry vessel storage building could be built and house small vessels creating another source of revenue and jobs. A vessel assist could be established. This would also provide a harbor of safe refuge for transiting vessels whether for mooring or repair purposes. The geographic location in itself would be the most unique marine facility in the state if not the country. This alone will bring in tourists and the money for the local economy. This idea will be the most successful and easily accomplished economically, environmentally, and geographically.