|Comment / Suggestion:|
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.