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 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/0351012a-f14a-4a23-8ae4-3f2cfb69eeba 1/1 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 8/16/22, 1:47 PM Received: August 15, 2022 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. l6v-036y-2ry4 Comments Due: October 19, 2022 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2022-0132 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 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Felica Keith, Samson Lee, Jennifer Harrity-Dixon. Mary Neely Comment (5)
Publication Date:
6/23/2022 Citation: 87 FR 37533
OFFICERS President Cindy Marie Absey 1st Vice-President/
Administration & Program Vallerie Steenson 2nd Vice-President/
Ed Cabrera Secretary Mary Bianchi Treasurer Janice Langley DIRECTORS Director Sue Bonitz Director Janice Carr Director Dianne Draze Director David Humphreys Director Elizabeth Manak Voter Service Director Julie Rodewald Social Policy Director Glenn Silloway August 15, 2022 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Panel California Energy Commission The League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County (LWV SLOCO) has been following the issues of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant decommissioning and the possibility of license extension. The California League of Women Voters has adopted positions that promote the environmentally sound use of energy resources, with consideration of the entire cycle of energy production; predominant reliance on 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 the appropriate agency or company to answer the questions below.
Energy needs
- 1. What is the status of the current plan to provide energy when the DCPP is decommissioned?
- 2. What has changed that would require the power from DCPP?
- 3. If Diablo Canyon is de-commissioned on schedule, what can the public expect (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 line be drawn along the continuum from no additional CO2 to using all available sources?
- 4. What other options to extension of DCPP operation have or should be considered? Are there new options in light of emerging technologies and innovations? Possible examples might include
- a. V2G* storage,
- b. more home battery backup systems,
- c. acceleration of installation of battery storage,
- d. development of a smarter grid to forestall consequences of dependence on intermittent renewable energy sources,
- e. incentivization of solar thermal electricity, such as heating a fluid (even salt to get it to a molten stage) that can drive steam turbines well after the sun goes down,
- f. use of gravity potential energy from pumping water to higher elevation during the day for hydro power at night.
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
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