ML103050045

Comment (16) of Jane Swanson and June Cochran on Behalf of Mothers for Peace Opposing Pg&E'S Application to Renew the License of Diablo Canyon for Another 20 Years

ML103050045
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/27/2010
From:	Cochran J, Swanson J Mothers for Peace
To:	Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
75FR4427 00016
Download: ML103050045 (2)

Text

K--r1 --*r PO Box 3608 p7-) ---

San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3608 www.rmothersforpeace.orgW- -_

Contact persons for questions or feedback on this advisory: -

Jane Swanson, (805) 595-2605; ianeslo(ckcbx.net June Cochran, (805) 773-2847; qradofcal~vyahoo.com Why oppose PG&E's application to renew the license of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant for another 20 years?

Background:

a The current operating licenses are in effect until 2024 for Unit 1 and 2025 for unit 2, but PG&E is asking permission to extend operations until 2044 and 2045.

• The relicensing application is premature since the results of many studies requested by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are not complete.

Earthquakes:

• The newly-discovered Shoreline Fault, less than one mile offshore of the Diablo site, has not been thoroughly studied yet. In addition to the Hosgri fault, there are many additional faults in the area.

" Most of the spent fuel (which is much more radioactive than the fuel in the reactors) is stored in over-crowded pools. A major earthquake has the potential of causing a loss of the borated water essential to cooling the spent fuel rods.

Radioactive Wastes:

• California law prohibits new plants until/unless the waste issue is resolved. To allow an existing plant to generate radioactive wastes for an additional 20 years would contradict the intent of this law.

Safety

" Recent NRC inspection reports (August, 2009) indicate that PG&E is not meeting industry standards in its identification and resolutions of problems at Diablo.

• There are an unacceptable number of human performance problems at Diablo, leading to violations of NRC regulations as well as failures to observe safety requirements.

Expensive re-training has not been effective in reducing the number of incidents.

• In the event of a major radiation release, those advised or choosing to evacuate would all have to drive in the direction opposite the wind carrying the radioactive material.

Our few available roads are woefully inadequate. ,_*-,r'2 ,

,5-c

Terrorism:

• The air space over Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant is NOT a no fly zone

• Instead of the casks being under berms or concrete and spread out in different locations, they are grouped in one place in clear view from the air or ocean.

" The spent fuel pools are not protected by containment structures, making them vulnerable to terrorist attack.

" The proliferation of fissile material presents a grave danger, as these materials have

• the potential to be used to make weapons if stolen.

Aging and Degradation:

• Diablo was designed in the 1960's. In the ensuing half century, not only have innumerable fixes been necessary to keep the plant running, but replacement parts have become unavailable.

• Significant corrosion and degradation of major components has caused many problems at Diablo, affecting tubes, pipes, steam generators, reactor vessels, etc.

Costs:

• PG&E's Feasibility Study for license renewal, paid for by ratepayers but as yet unpublished, cost the ratepayers $16.8 million.

• PG&E estimates the cost of license renewal to be $85 million.

• The replacement of the 8 steam generators, at a cost approaching one billion dollars, was necessary because the original ones were flawed even when originally purchased and installed.

o A new once-through cooling system, to reduce the unacc6ptable loss of sealife, is projected to cost $3 billion.

CONCLUSION:

The history of Diablo Canyon shows that in terms of safety, security, and economics, it is not in the public interest to add an additional 20 years to the operating life of the two reactors at Diablo Canyon. The only advantage would be to the corporate profits of PG&E. PG&E should, instead, apply its considerable resources toward establishing itself as a leader in the development of renewable sources of energy.