I would like to obtain more information regarding the possibility of joining the next term of panel members for the decommissioning planning activities. I am the CEO of a environmental consulting firm whose emphasis is on worker protection, HAZMAT remediation, geoscience and infection control. I have included links to our website and my online profile for your review. I am not a long time resident of SLO county, however I do own a home and reside in Cambria part time (I am part time every where as I travel for work quite a bit). My company was intricately involved in the over two year renovations project of the Neptune Pool at Hearst Castle, handling the environmental exposure risk mitigation portion of the project. I am greatly interested in the balance of decommissioning the power plant safely and effectively, minimizing the environmental impact of the process, as well as properly repurposing existing facilities and creating long lasting economic stability for local professionals and businesses impacted by the decommissioning of this facility. Please feel free to contact me at 714-334-9389.

Greetings,

These are my recommendation for the repurposing of PG&E lands after decommissioning:

1. Extend Montana de Oro State Park south to the lighthouse and east to Perfumo Canyon and the town of Avila Beach.

2. Establish back-country hiking trails and hike-in/overnight campgrounds.

3. Extend Pecho Valley Road to the power plant access road, allowing tourist, campers and park users to drive and bike unobstructed through the park.

4. Have State Parks establish a kiosk at both entrances to the park to collect revenue to help maintain the park and roadway.

5. Build a coastal campground with hook-ups and tent sites.

6. Build a trail that becomes a section of the California Coastal Trail.

Thank you for your hard work,

Dale Kinney
Los Osos

Will the desalination capabilities be retained and operational for community/regional distribution?

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. MILLER: Thank you. I just wanted to add a couple notes -- I'm sorry.· Eric Miller.· I'm actually a consultant with Miller Marine Science and Consulting. I've been working extensively in the seawater desalinization space, especially down here in Southern California. I just wanted to follow up with some of Mr. Juarez's comments and to some of the other questions I've heard.

He was correct in saying -- Mr. Juarez is correct in saying there have not been a -- there has not been a seawater desalinization plant that has been fully permitted under the ocean plan amendment that was adopted in 2015.· The closest was Carlsbad facility, but that had some special situations because it was an existing facility at the time.· It was more than 80 percent constructed by the time the new regulation was passed, but I did want to note I heard a couple of questions about the capacity of the facility and how much water would be available in relation to after the power plant did what it needed to maintain its operations through decommissioning.· There was one important point to keep in mind.· Desalinization of facilities can be expanded as is the case with the Charles Meyers facility in Santa Barbara.· That's one that's probably going to be expanded in the near future as additional local water districts choose to start taking water from that facility and I believe the same would occur here -- would be available here for the Diablo Canyon facility.· In the end, the critical items that are probably of most importance to consider when thinking about whether or not another entity such as the county to take over the operation and title, if you will, of the desalinization facility is more located in the existing infrastructure that's there that would not need to be replaced or created with a new facility, as well as the opportunity to utilize an existing MPDS permit through the Regional Water Board and build upon existing permitting rather than starting from ground zero.

So I think those are two couple very distinct advantages that this facility does present to the county if they are able to gather up additional partners to be involved in the project. That concludes my comment. Thank you.

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. CHARTRAND:· Hello.· Thank you.· Thank you to the commission for your service and it's late so I'll try and keep it brief.

I'm Don Chartrand.· I live in Los Osos.· I'm the executive director of Creek Lands Conservation. Some of you may know us by our prior name, Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, and I mention that mainly because my comment tonight has to do with aqua culture, which is how we found our roots years ago growing salmon for fishermen.· Now we're more of a conservation group and in that capacity we are focused on a variety of different species important to the Central Coast.· My topic tonight focuses on abalone.· We're working with Noah Fisheries and the Nature Conservancy and Cal Poly to try and come up with a plan to save white abalone, which is an endangered species like black abalone. They're not native to the rocks in the near tidal in this immediate area, but the water is cold here and they live in deep cold water a little bit further south.· So the thought here is to use, you know, an idea to repurpose some of the infrastructure at Diablo Canyon for the purpose of what we're calling conservation aqua culture, which would be to raise large numbers of
immature organisms of a variety of types from shellfish to seaweed and maybe even fin fish of some type down the road for the purpose of rewilding California's coast that has been depleted by climate change and human use and disease like we've heard about from the black abalone.· So Conservation Aqua Culture is a use that has not been formally put forward to the decommissioning panel.· I just want to put on the record I think that would be a very interesting and use of the facilities at Parcel P. Thank you.

Public comment presented during October 28, 2020 public Engagement Panel meeting.

MR. DOWNING:· All right.· Thank you, everyone. Matt Downing.· I'm the community development director for the City of Pismo Beach.· I wanted to touch on a couple of things.· Thank you all very much for your time this evening.· The first, the desal -- idea for desal that was a great idea in 2015-'16.· Since that time, the City of Pismo Beach and our partner agencies have moved forward with the Central Coast Blue Project.· That will provide all the water that we need for south county.· So really the desal idea isn't totally necessary anymore. In terms of the marina, it would be a really unfortunate and costly thing to have that torn out.· Seeing that stay and turned into some kind of commercial marina use, maybe even looking at the long-term use of the land itself in terms of an eco tourism opportunity would be a fantastic opportunity, but whatever we look at in the future in terms of the land, one thing we wanted to keep in mind is that Avila Beach Drive is really the only way in and out of that area and I know that we are severely impacted by large events and large heavy uses specifically on Shell Beach Road in our community.· So just wanted to put those ideas out there.· Thank you all again for your time and I'll end it there.

Dear Chuck and members of the DCDEP:

It appears that the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 main stator, barely one year old, has now failed for a third time after this recent attempted restart (this following a 46 day outage, which followed the 2 week outage back in July). Aside from any safety implications (and PG&E’s stated need for the replacement was to maintain safety) the troubling history of repeated failures of a new “replacement” part is reminiscent of the way the San Onofre nuclear plant’s history unfolded. In that instance, problems also emerged barely a year after the steam generators were replaced, and it was discovered that the flawed design and manufacturing process had created conditions of premature degradation. As full replacement (of the replacements) was deemed the only solution, SCE considered it too expensive and the plant was retired.

While we will need to await any full evaluation of the stator failures at Diablo Canyon, should a San Onofre style situation emerge, the County and the DCDEP may wish to remain cognizant of how this harbinger could alter the timeline for decommissioning and thus also the economic forecast and trajectory of the district in accelerating the closure of Diablo Canyon.

Kindly feel free to reach out to The Alliance with any questions or concerns.

Hoping that you and your staff are remaining well and healthy during this pandemic.

Yours truly,

DAVID WEISMAN

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
PO Box 1328
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 704-1810 cell
davidjayweisman@gmail.com
www.a4nr.org

SEE BELOW:

CA Current
Diablo Canyon Unit Down Again

3 Dec 2020

One of two main units at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is down for the third time. Soon after Unit 2 was restarted over the Thanksgiving weekend after a month-and-a-half long outage, Pacific Gas & Electric again had to take it offline. The problem continues to be with an electric generator component that was rebuilt last year.

“Operators have previously taken the unit offline twice this year to allow for needed maintenance on this component, which had been refurbished in 2019 and is located on the non-nuclear side of Unit 2,” PG&E stated the evening of Dec. 2.

After the 1,150 MW Unit 2 went back online on Sunday, Nov. 29, the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility questioned whether the second repair of a key electric generation component, known as a stator, would be lasting, or was a mere band-aid.

“Two days later, PG&E has apparently attempted to hose the stator down and its soggy band-aid sits on the floor in the shower,” David Weisman, Alliance spokesperson, told Current.

Ratepayers paid $100 million for the stator replacement.

What is the cause of the hydrogen leak, who pays for the repair, and whether there are plans for special monitoring to catch subsequent leaks, are among the Alliance’s questions.

PG&E did not respond to Current’s requests for answers to those queries.

Alliance’s request for ratepayer refund denied

The Alliance challenged PG&E’s request for full rate recovery of the replaced stator but was unsuccessful. On Thursday, state regulators approved raising PG&E revenue this year to $9.1 billion. Its decision included denying the organization’s recent request to return $12.5 million of the $100 million rebuild tab to ratepayers, though the commissioners may not have been aware of the third Unit 2 outage.

Diablo’s other operating unit, which was shut down for planned maintenance and refueling starting Oct. 3, resumed sending power to the grid Nov. 9.

The entire 2,200 MW nuclear plant was offline when the grid operator called for conservation on Oct. 15 because of spiking temperatures.

The Alliance has argued that electricity from Diablo has been significantly more expensive than other sources the last three years. It recently told the CPUC that in 2018, consumers paid $410 million extra for this above-market power, and that amount soared to nearly $1.3 billion this year. It estimated that ratepayers will have paid $5-6 billion in higher electricity costs by the time the two nuclear units are retired in 2025.

—Elizabeth McCarthy

Email to Panel member Kara Woodruff from Troy Barnhart regarding the waverider buoy.

Dear Kara,

As suggested, I am writing to elaborate on my concerns for the fate of the Diablo Canyon waverider buoy.
As a bit of background about the buoy itself, PG&E installed the buoy in 1983 following the destructive 1982-1983 El Niño events. Data from the buoy is shared with the Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP) managed by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and available at https://cdip.ucsd.edu/themes/cdip?
pb=1&u2=s:076:st:1&d2=p9. CDIP is an extensive network of wave buoys and a premier source for metocean data. While possible PG&E originally installed
1. the buoy of its own volition to optimize operations at the Diablo Canyon plant , PG&E Engineer
Trevor Rebel indicated in the DCDEP meeting on November 28, 2020 that the buoy is currently
2. maintained as a licensing commitment to the NRC . In that presentation, Mr. Rebel indicated that
while maintenance of the buoy is relatively minimal, it would not be necessary to continue funding operation of the buoy if the breakwater remains in place.

Currently, the Diablo Canyon waverider buoy is the only active nearshore wave buoy between Monterey and the Los Angeles basin. Thus, this buoy in particular is an important data source for ongoing and future scientific, engineering, and planning efforts. I am concerned that if Diablo Canyon ceases generation and NRC permitting requirements subsequently loosen or expire, the buoy will be retired from service. As part of the decommissioning process, I believe it would be best to seek both a future owner/operator of the buoy such as Cal Poly or Scripps and a funding commitment for continued operations.

Feel free to contact me if you have further questions, or it may be of use to reach out to John Lindsey, a meteorologist with PG&E who is very familiar with the buoy and its data outputs.

Sincerely,

Troy Barnhart
troy.j.barnhart@gmail.com

1 http://cdip.ucsd.edu/dbase/web_stations/076/articles/20040217.html
2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1okDI_n3yPS5-1aRAMS7zHGn067ynz3go/view

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

If buildings are repurposed, does the amount of water needed for decommissioning go down and if so by how much? 25 per cent, 50 per cent?

Response 1 - We do not know — depends on how the building is used. However, the buildings at Diablo are used as part of a 24-hour facility. Most uses would not be as impactful.

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Like the Santa Barbara plant, I would assume the DCPP desalination plant could be expanded as needed. I believe the value in the existing plant is much of the infrastructure is existing already saving that construction costs as well as an existing permit that could be built upon to streamline the total permitting cost.

Response 1 - That is correct. The volumes analyzed were based on existing water volumes under current permitting.

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Thank you for the great questions and comments from the panelists. South County residents are moving forward with recycled water and conservation alternatives. Surfrider Foundation supports those approaches instead of placing additional impacts of ocean outfall for brine disposal from ocean water desalination. Wouldn't it also make sense that the solution to the Diablo Lands water use would come through conservation and reclamation?

Response 1 - Thanks for you input, Brad. The Panel appreciates hearing from Surfrider.

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Just a comment – the “Desalination Amendment” to the Ocean Plan sets very high environmental protection bars for the design, operation, and mitigation of desalination intakes and discharges. It requires 1.0-mm mesh screens (to minimize entrainment of smaller non-swimming organisms) and enough screening area to ensure through-screen velocity does not exceed 0.5 ft/sec (to minimize impingement of larger organisms). CA is widely recognized for setting the highest bar in this regard.

Response 1 - you are correct. Mr. Juarez showed an example of this type of screen in his presentation.

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Will an onsite wastewater treatment plant continue to operate in support of the ISFSI oversight staff? Would this plant circulate water to dilute the treatment plant effluent? If so, would that be available for brine dilution?

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

What is the current estimate of black abalone present in the same area that historically showed 9000? Also, are there current estimates of red abalone?

Response 1 - Thanks for your other question.

Response 2 - TENERA should have the accurate data, but I believe that prior to “The withering foot syndrome”. where 90 percent of the black abalone were impacted, within Diablo Cove (which had approximately 800 meters of suitable habitat) the counts were over 2000 black abalone.

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Is it possible to leave the breakwater as is and let it be abandoned eventually without committing to keeping it in top shape?

Response 1 - yes — that can be considered if state lands commission were to approve that. It is not up to the lessee.

Response 2 - Thank you Jack. I think that outcome is preferred to removing it, and the Panel will consider addressing that in the next revision of its Strategic Vision.

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

Thanks for the follow-up on the breakwater question. Wouldn’t removal require its own round of permitting and CEQA assessment? I would think that is an off-ramp to this expensive and potentially disruptive effort.

Response 1 - Yes. However, previous state rulings offer that the temporary impacts can be outweighed by the long-term benefit from removal to restore habitat.

Written Comments, Questions and Answers received during the October 28, 2020 Online Engagement Panel Webinar Meeting:

John Waddell, What are the possibilities for "water wheeling" going north to Whale Rock pipeline instead of south to Lopez system with desalinated water? Is going north a more efficient cost effective approach to delivering desal water to San Luis County?

Response 1 - Bill, The pipeline to the south was about 7 miles. The route to the north for interconnection was over 11 miles. If connected to south county system, they could wheel state water from southern customers and re-route using the method you suggest to central and north county. In essence, it was a county wide benefit if executed.

I'm new to the site, so please pardon my ignorance, but does PG&E have any community economic development plans to help mitigate the impact of closing Diablo Canyon on the local/regional economy?

Please see attached news story published by California Currents on October 20, 2020

Is there a function in this website which allows for an automatic notice via email or text re: time/date upcoming meetings?

Tom Marré
Tommarre@gmail.com
9.29.2020

My name is Michael Ratty. I am a retired engineer and have been a resident of rural Arroyo Grande for 40 years.
As we all know there are thousands of nuclear fuel assemblies at Diablo Canyon waiting for some kind of disposal method.
What was created in a nuclear reactor needs to be destroyed in a nuclear reactor.
Current reactor technology allows us to use the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) as fuel in a new reactor.
The reactor I am referring to is one of the Generation 4 reactors that specifically use a molten salt as fuel and for heat exchange. It is call a Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactor (MCSFR)
The existing SNF pellets are converted into a chloride salt and used as fuel in this type of reactor.
See Figure 1.
This process has been verified through a Department of Energy – GAIN Project at Idaho National Laboratories. See Figure 2
Once a 1.2 gigawatt electric reactor is started, it will use approximately one metric ton of SNF or approximately 2.5 fuel assemblies per year.
As you can see this is an extremely efficient process, actually to efficient to use all the SNF at Diablo Canyon in my grandchild’s life time.
If you want more information on the MCSFR, please refer to the following link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ou_xswB2b0
Thank you and please consider integrating this technology to eliminate the SNF at Diablo Canyon. Please contact me at advancednuclear6@gmail.com and let me know what you think.

Email from David Weisman, Outreach Coordinator, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

Dear Mr. Anders and DCDEP members:

This recent event, https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/us/tempe-arizona-train-derailment/index.html is still under investigation. However, if it is proven that it was the bridge (allegedly recently inspected) that gave way first beneath the train leading to the derailment and fire, then it further underscores the need to remedy the deficiency my recent comments with regard to the Garrick transportation report highlight: Their risk analysis fails to look at the actual rail infrastructure along our coastal transport route and evaluate future predictions for its geologic stability, maintenance, and useful life.

Thank you for distributing this to the DCDEP members and for consideration of this information.

Yours truly,

DAVID WEISMAN
Outreach Coordinator

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
PO Box 1328
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 704-1810 cell
davidjayweisman@gmail.com
www.a4nr.org

Email from David Weisman, Outreach Coordinator, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

Dear Mr. Anders and Diablo Canyon Decommissioning Engagement Panel:

Attached please find a letter filed today with the State Water Resources Control board, captioned:

Request to sever the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant compliance date waiver from the Draft OTC Policy Amendment scheduled for consideration at the SWRCB September 1, 2020 meeting.

As noted in our letter,

A4NR was one of the co-sponsors of the 2016 Joint Proposal for the retirement of Diablo Canyon that is mentioned in the March 18, 2020 Draft Staff Report. Section 6.2 of the Joint Proposal addressed PG&E’s plan to request an amendment of the OTC Policy, noting that “The Parties will review the amendment request and reserve the right to oppose it or seek additional conditions.” Rather than uphold its contractual commitment to advance review and discussion by the Joint Proposal signatories, PG&E unilaterally dispatched its lobbyist to seek the Unit 2 compliance date extension

As neither the Alliance, nor any of the other co-signers we have contacted were notified of PG&E’s amendment request, we are unaware if PG&E has shared this situation with the DCDEP, whose mission very much includes consideration of this waiver, which affects the timing, scope and cost of the decommissioning project. We recall the previous incident that was brought to light by Alex Karlin of the DCDEP believing (or having been assured by PG&E) that it’s final report and recommendations would be made part of the official record in the CPUC NDCTP proceeding, only to discover that it was not. We wish not to believe that this important issue would have also passed unnoticed by the DCDEP, therefore seek your confirmation that this amendment request has already been shared with the DCDEP members. If not, we present our evaluation here with a request that our letter be distributed to the DCDEP membership.

All the documents referenced in our letter (including PG&E’s) can be found at: http://a4nr.org/?p=4311

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours truly,
DAVID WEISMAN
Outreach Coordinator

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
PO Box 1328
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 704-1810 cell
davidjayweisman@gmail.com
www.a4nr.org

Why not convert to Low Temperature Plant? I’ve seed Bill & Melinda Gates funded research and seams the most logical use.

Would turning the facility into some kind of aquarium (eg. Monterey bay) be an option??