ML22228A164
| ML22228A164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/2022 |
| From: | Absey C, Havlik N, Murry K League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County, CA |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| Download: ML22228A164 (3) | |
Text
8/16/22, 1:48 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/0351012a-f14a-4a23-8ae4-3f2cfb69eeba SUNI Review Complete As of: 8/16/22, 1:47 PM Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: August 15, 2022 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Felica Keith, Status: Pending_Post Samson Lee, Tracking No. l6v-036y-2ry4 Jennifer Harrity-Comments Due: October 19, 2022 Dixon. Mary NeelySubmission Type: Web Comment (5)
Publication Date:
Docket: NRC-2022-0132 6/23/2022 Citation: 87 FR 37533 Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
Comment On: NRC-2022-0132-0001 Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
Document: NRC-2022-0132-DRAFT-0005 Comment on FR Doc # 2022-13406
Submitter Information
Email: zestykimm@yahoo.com Government Agency Type: Local Government Agency: League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County
General Comment
Docket ID NRC-2022-0132 Please see the attached letter regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning versus possible license extension
Attachments
Letter on Diablo Decommisiong 8-15-22
blob:https://www.fdms.gov/0351012a-f14a-4a23-8ae4-3f2cfb69eeba 1/1 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Mailing Address: PO Box 4210, San Luis Obispo CA 93403 VOICE MAIL (805) 242-6990 EMAIL info@lwvslo.org WEBSITE www.lwvslo.org
August 15, 2022
OFFICERS Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Panel President California Energy Commission Cindy Marie Absey The League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County (LWV SLOCO) has been 1st Vice-President/ following the issues of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant decommissioning and Administration & Program Vallerie Steenson the possibility of license extension. The California League of Women Voters has adopted positions that promote the environmentally sound use of energy resources, with 2nd Vice-President/ consideration of the entire cycle of energy production; predominant reliance on Ed Cabrera renewable resources; and policies that limit reliance on nuclear fission. With the desire to see our community well-informed of potential consequences of an extension, we ask Secretary Mary Bianchi the appropriate agency or company to answer the questions below.
Treasurer Energy needs Janice Langley 1. What is the status of the current plan to provide energy when the DCPP is decommissioned?
DIRECTORS 2. What has changed that would require the power from DCPP?
Director 3. If Diablo Canyon is de-commissioned on schedule, what can the public expect Sue Bonitz (quantify) in terms of interruption to electric power? How much of that can be mitigated with a cost of more CO2 (gas fired plants)? Where and how will the Director line be drawn along the continuum from no additional CO2 to using all Janice Carr available sources?
Director 4. What other options to extension of DCPP operation have or should be Dianne Draze considered? Are there new options in light of emerging technologies and innovations? Possible examples might include Director a. V2G* storage, David Humphreys b. more home battery backup systems,
- c. acceleration of installation of battery storage, Director d. development of a smarter grid to forestall consequences of dependence Elizabeth Manak on intermittent renewable energy sources, Voter Service Director e. incentivization of solar thermal electricity, such as heating a fluid (even Julie Rodewald salt to get it to a molten stage) that can drive steam turbines well after the sun goes down, Social Policy Director f. use of gravity potential energy from pumping water to higher elevation Glenn Silloway during the day for hydro power at night.
Page 2 Safety
- 1. What are the safety issues for extension of DCPP operation? Specifically
- a. How will additional nuclear fuel storage be handled given that both the spent fuel pools and casks capacity is full?
- b. What is the delayed maintenance due to the anticipated decommissioning and how will it be addressed?
Timescale and process
- 1. Will the extension of DCPP operation require re-licensing, extension of the current license, or some other process? What is the timescale and cost?
- 2. What agencies and decision-making bodies will have a say over the decision on license extension or relicensing, and what is the timing of the public process of each agency or decision-making body?
- 3. If the request is for an extension rather than relicensing, what guarantee does the public have that there might not be further extensions, adding up to a span of years that would normally warrant the full process of relicensing?
- 4. What is to become of the money that has been spent and work that has been done on the application and DEIR for the Decommissioning Plan being processed by the County? Will this effort simply be abandoned, or will the work somehow be folded into a new application and DEIR with a different project description? Will the extension of DCPP operation constitute a "project" under CEQA, and, if so, will the County remain the Lead Agency? If not, what agency will be the place for the public to go with its questions and concerns?
Collateral Impact
- 1. What are the environmental impacts of extension of DCPP operation and their mitigations?
- 2. What is the impact on future planned use of the facility for other power purposes such as the offshore wind turbines?
- 3. Is there any intention to request permission for the seismic blasting approved by the State Lands Commission in 2012 and then denied by the Coastal Commission, and, if so, who, under present circumstances, would have the authority to permit or deny this?
Relative cost
- 1. What is the cost per kwH of continuing DCPP operation versus renewable power sources such as developing additional solar power with storage batteries? Given the net investment it will take to reverse course and extend the life of Diablo Canyon, is it more cost effective to invest those monies in renewable sources of energy.
- 2. What would be the estimated costs related to covering the delayed maintenance issues that have occurred if the DCPP is continued?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Cindy Marie Absey, President League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County Neil Havlik and Kim Murry Co-Chairs, Natural Resources Committee, League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County