ML23073A382

Re-filed San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peaces Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene in License Renewal Proceeding for Diablo Canyon Spent Fuel Storage Installation

ML23073A382
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/14/2023
From:	Curran D Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
To:	NRC/SECY
SECY RAS
References
RAS 56668, 72-026-LR
Download: ML23073A382 (0)

Text

Ma rch 13, 2023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY

In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Docket No. 72 -26 Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Installation

SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE S HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO IN TERVE NE IN LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEEDING FOR DIABLO CANYON SPENT FUEL STORAGE IN ST ALL ATION

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the notice of an opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to

intervene published at 88 Fed. Reg. 1,431 (Jan. 10, 2023), San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace

( SLOMFP ) submits this Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene regarding Pacific Gas &

Electric Co. s ( PG&E s ) application to renew its license for the independent spent fuel storage

installation ( ISFSI ) located on the site of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant ( Diablo Canyon or DCPP ).1 As se t forth in SLOMFP s con tentions, PG&E s license renewal for the

ISFSI is grossly inadequate to sa tisfy either NRC s Atomic Energy Act -based sa fety regulations

or the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ), because the application does not address

how the proposed ISFSI will accommodate a huge quantity of spent reactor fuel that PG&E has

suddenly proposed to generate as a result of a Fall 2022 decision to pursue license renewal for the twin reactors at Diablo Canyon instead of retiring them. 2

1 Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Site -Specific License Renewal Application, Rev. 0 (March 2022) ( 2022 ISFSI License Renewal Application ).

2 PG&E announced the decision to the NRC in a letter from Paula Gerfen, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, PG&E, to NRC, re: Request to Resume Review of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant License Renewal Application or, Alternatively, for an Exemption from 10 CFR 2.109(b), Concerning a Timel y Renewal Application (Oct. 31, 2022) ( Gerfen Letter ).

As discussed in the Gerfen Letter, PG&E made the decision to se ek ren ewal of the operating

licenses for its two reactors after the California Assembly, at the behest of California Governor

Gavin Newsom, passed SB 846. SB 846 revoked the California Public Utilities Commission s

( CPUC s ) previous approval of PG&E s 2016 decision to close the reactors on their operating

license termination dates in 2024 (Unit 1) and 2025 (Unit 2).

PG&E submitted the 2022 ISFSI License Renewal Application in Ma rch of 2022, before

passage of SB 846, with the intent ion of using the ISFSI to store the entire inventory of Diablo

Canyon s spent fuel after the reactors operating licenses expired, until a permanent federal

repository became available. Remarkably, despite the fact that five months have passed since S B

846 became law, PG&E has not changed one word of the ISFSI License Application to address

how it will use the ISFSI to store the large quantity of spent fuel it plans to generate during the

reactors license renewal terms. Nor has PG&E chan ged one word of the U pdated Final Safety

Analysis Report it submitted to the NRC in 2021, which sta te s that the ISFSI provide[s]

suf ficient storage space for DCPP spent fuel through plant decommissioning. 3

If th e UFSAR is to be believed, PG&E intends to store all of the spent fuel generated at

Diablo Canyon - which now will be one -a nd -a -half times the quantity of spent fuel PG&E

originally planned on - in the ISFSI. Yet, PG&E s 2022 ISFSI License Renewal Applicat ion

utterly fails to address the question of how the ISFSI will be re -designed to accommodat e the

additional spent fuel. Nor does the ISFSI License Re n ewal Application address the question of

how PG&E will remain financially qualified to manage this large quantity of spent fuel in a re -

designed ISFSI, or the adequacy of its decommissioning fund to decommission the ISFSI a fter a

3 Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Updated Final S afety Analysis Report - Revision 9 at 1 -4 (December 9, 2021) (ML22032A074).

2 repository becomes available and the ISFSI has ceased to operate. 4 PG&E s abject failure to

addr ess these radically -chan ged circumstances regarding its plans for storage of many additional

tons of spent fuel vi olates b oth NRC sa fety regulations and the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA ).

In order to sa tisfy NRC sa fety regulations and NEPA, PG&E must revise its license renewal

application to demonstrate how the ISFSI will be re -designed to accommodate another twent y

years worth of spent fuel to be generated at the reactors, how PG&E will finance the operation

of the ISFSI for another twenty years, and how PG&E will finance the decommissioning of the

ISFSI with a significantly increased inventory of spent fuel.

II. STANDING OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d), a request for a hearing must address: (1) the nature of

the petitioner s right under the Atomic Energy Act to be made a party to the proceeding, (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding, and

(3) the possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner s

interest. The Atomic Safe ty and Licensing Board ( ASLB ) has summarized these standing

requirements as follows:

In determining whether a petitioner has sufficient interest to intervene in a proceeding, the Commission has traditionally applied judicial concepts of standing. Contemp oraneous judicial standards for standing require a petitioner to demonstrate that (1) it has suffered or will suffer a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes injury - in -fact within the zone of interest arguably protected by the governing statutes (e.g., the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969); (2) the injury can fairly be traced to the challenged actions; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. An organization that wishes to interve ne in a proceeding may do so either in its own right by demonstrating harm to its organizational interests, or in a representational capacity by demonstrating harm to its members. To intervene in a representational

4 While S B 846 limited the term of extended operation to five years, it did not rule out further extensions. And NRC regulations permit PG&E to se ek a license renewal term of twenty years.

3 capacity, an organization must show not only that at least one of its members would fulfill the standing requirements, but also that he or she has authorized the organization to represent his or her interests. 5

As demonstrated below, SLOMFPs organizational interests fall within the zone of int erests

protected by the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA.

SLOMFP is a non -profit membership organization concerned with the dangers posed by

Diablo Canyon and other nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, and radioactive waste. SLOMFP

also works to promote peace, env ironmental and social justice, and renewable energy. SLOMFP

has participated in NRC licensing cases involving the Diablo Canyon reactors since 1973. As

demonstrated by the attached declarations of SLOMFP members Karou Hisasue, Linda Seeley,

Lucy Jane Swans on, and Jill ZamEk, SLOMFP has representational standing through members

who live within six to eighteen miles of the Diablo Canyon site, who are concerned about the

safety and environmental impacts of continued operation of the Diablo Canyon ISFSI, and wh o

authorize SLOMFP to represent their interests in this proceeding. 6

5 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP -02 -23, 56 N.R.C. 413, 426 (2002), petition for re view denied, CLI -03 -12, 58 N.R.C. 185 (2003).

6 See Attachment 1, Declaration of Kaoru Hisasue (March 10, 2023); Attachment 2, Declaration of Linda Seeley (March 13, 2023); Attachment 3, Declaration of Lucy Jane Swanson (March 10, 2023); and Attachment 4, Declaration of Jill Zam Ek (March 10, 2023). See also Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP -02 -

23, 56 N.R.C. 413, (2002) (concluding that SLOMFP had standing to participate in the initial licensing proceeding for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI based on the proximity of SLO MFP members who lived within seventeen miles of the proposed facility).

4 III. CONTENTIONS

Contention A: Information Provided in License Renewal Application is Incorrect and Insufficient to Satisfy NRC Safety Regulations.

1. Statement of C ontention.

PG&E s license renewal application is incorrect and insufficient to sa tisfy NRC design

criteria and sa fety regulations for ISFSIs because it fails to provide accurate and complete

information regarding its satisfaction of NRC sa fety regulations 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e), 10 C.F.R.

§ § 72. 30(a) and (b), and the General Design Criteria in 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Su bpart F. The 2022

ISFSI License Renewal Application is inaccurate and incomplete because its representations are

based on the incorrect a ssumption that PG&E will retire the Diablo Canyon reactors in 2024 and

2025. In fact, however, PG&E intends to se ek rene wal of the reactor licenses for as much as

twenty years, and has obtained a regulatory exemption from NRC for that purpose. 7 If the NRC

grants PG&E s reactor license renewal application, it may generate as much as half the quantity

of spent fuel that will be generated by the end of the first license term - a quantity too substantial

to be ignored.

For instance, PG&E asserts that it sa tisfie s 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e) s financial qualifications

requirements for operation because the General Ra te Ca se process re gulated by the CPUC

provides it with sufficient funds to operate the ISFSI until the DCPP Unit 1 permanent

shutdown in 2024. 8 After that, PG&E proposes to take funding from the Decommissioning

Trust Fund. 9 In fact, however, PG&E may operate the reactors an additional twenty years,

thereby extending the period in which the operation of the ISFSI must be funded by means other

7 NRC Notice of Exemption Issuance, 88 Fed. Reg. 14,395 (March 8, 2023).

8 2022 ISFSI License Renewal Application at 1 -4.

9 Id.

5 than the Decommissioning Trust Fund. PG&E must demonstrate its financial qualificati ons for

the entire twenty -year renewal period of the reactor licenses.

Similarly, PG&E claims to have sufficient funds to decommission the ISFSI. Id. But

PG&E s claim is based on the assumption that the ISFSI will hold only the amount of spent fuel

that w ill be generated during the first 40 years of the reactors operating lives. PG&E has not

addressed the cost of decommissioning the ISFSI if it is used to store a quantity of spent fuel that

is half again as large as the quantity that has been generated an d will be generated during the

reactors initial license terms. Therefore, PG&E has failed to sa tisfy 10 C.F.R. §§ 72.30(a)

and (b).

Finally, PG&E s license renewal application does not discuss how the ISFSI will be re -

designed to provide sufficient storage space for DCPP spent fuel through plant

decommissioning, as PG & E has a sserted in the 2021 UFSAR that is referenced in the license renewal application. 10 A t the time the Diablo Canyon ISFSI was licensed, it was designed to be

just big enough to hold the entire inventory of the two reactors at the end of their 40 -year license

terms. If PG&E retired the reactors at the end of their license terms, the ISFSI clearly would be

large enough to provide sufficient storage space for DCPP spent fuel through plant

10 UFSAR at 4.2 -1 (emphasis added). Accord ing to the UFSAR:

The Diablo Canyon ISFSI storage site is designed to include seven cask storage pads in a row. Each pad will accommodate up to 20 HI -STORM 100SA storage casks. Figure 4.1 -1 shows the layout of the pads with the surrounding security fence, nuisance fence, and approximate dimensions. Seven storage pads provide sufficient storage space for DCPP spent fuel through plant decommissioning. The se ismic design criteria for the cask storage pads are described in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.2. Pad embedme nt design criteria are integrated with the storage cask pad design criteria, which is the primary focus of discussion in Section 3.3.2. A further discussion of the design criteria, analyses, and resulting design of the cask storage pads is provided here.

6 decommissioning, as sta te d in the UFSAR at page 4.1 -2. But if PG&E obtains renewal of its

reactor licenses, it will have to make design changes to the ISF SI in order for th e UF SAR s

assertion to continue to be correct. PG&E must address these design changes in order to sa tisfy

the General Design Criteria of 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart F. If the UFSAR is incorrect, PG&E

must correct it and explain how it will resolve the inconsist ency between the UFSAR and the

ISFSI License Renewal Application.

2. Basis Statement.

In order to obtain renewal of its operating license for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI, PG&E

must submit information that is both correct and sufficient to demonstrate satisfaction of the

NRC s sa fety regulations. 11 Here, PG&E submitted its license renewal application in Ma rch of

2022, when it still planned to retire the Diablo Canyon reactors in 2024 (Unit 1) and 2025 (Unit

2). Then in September of 2022, the California Assembly passed S B 846, reversing the CPUC s

decision approving the retirement of Diablo Canyon. And in the F all of 2022, PG&E informed

the NRC that it wished to se e renewal of its reactor licenses. 12

PG&E knew at that time that if its reactor licenses were renewed, it would generate a

significant amount of additional spent fuel and that it would also delay the decommissioning of

the reactors. Yet, PG &E made no attempt to update its Ma rch 2022 ISFSI license renewal

application to account for increased operating costs, delayed decommissioning, or design

changes that would be needed for PG&E to continue to fulfill its sta te d plan of using the ISFSI to

ac commodate the reactors entire spent fuel inventory at the time of decommissioning. PG&E s

license renewal application must be rejected because it fails to provide accurate or complete

11 10 C.F.R. § 72.11(a).

12 Gerfen Letter.

7 information in satisfaction of 10 C.F.R. §§ 72.22(e), 72.30 (a) and (b), and the General De sign

Criteria in 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart F.

3. Demonstration that the contention is within the scope of the proceeding.

This contention is within the scope of the license renewal proceeding for the Diablo

Canyon ISFSI because it seeks compliance by PG&E with NRC sa fety regulati ons.

4. Demonstration that the contention is material to the findings NRC must make to renew the Diablo Canyon ISFSI license.

This Contention is material to the findings NRC must make regarding the sa fety of the

ISFSI s continued operation because it demonstrates noncompliance with mandatory sa fety

requirements for ISFSIs.

5. Concise sta tement of the facts or expert opinion supporting the contention, along with appropriate citations to supporting scientific or factual materials.

The facts supporting SLOMFP s contention are se t forth in official PG&E and

government documents as cited in the Statement of the C ontention and Ba sis S tatement.

8 Contention B: Inadequate Statement of Purpose and Need in Environmental Assessment.

1. Statement of C ontention.

The Environmental Report s discussion at pages F - 1 - F -2 of the Purpose and Need for the

Proposed Action is inadequate to sa tisfy NEPA or NRC implementing regulations because it is

based on the assumption that the reactors will close when their operating lic enses expire in 2024

and 2025. Therefore, it discusses only the purposes and needs of the ISFSI that are related to

continued storage of spent fuel after the reactor license termination dates, and not purposes and

needs related to continued operation of th e reactors and generation of more spent fuel. 13 This is

because PG&E submitted the application in Ma rch of 2022, six years after deciding to close the

reactors and not se ek license renewal. PG&E did not make any changes to the ISFSI license

renewal applica tion after passage of S B 846 and its decision to submit a new application for

renewal of the reactor licenses.

The Environmental Report s statement of need and purpose is not reasonably accurate or

up -to -date because it does not address the spent fuel storage needs created by PG&E s recent

reversal of its previous decision to close Diablo Canyon at the end of the reactors operating

license terms and instead apply for renewal of the licenses. Nor does the statement of need and

13 2022 ISFSI License Renewal Application at F -1 - F -2. The first four paragraphs describe the history of the repository program established by Congress under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act

( NWPA ), including governme nt s failure to site or open a repository to date. They also describe the NRC s generic findings regarding the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent fuel pending the opening of a repository, and the NRC s assessment that a repository is both technically feasible and reasonably likely to be built in 25 to 35 years.

In the last paragraph, the Environmental Assessment sums up the purpose of and need for the ISFSI as follows:

Due to the current timeframe projections for development of a feder al geologic repository, the purpose and the need for the proposed action is to provide for continued temporary dry storage of spent nuclear fuel generated from operation of DCPP at the DC ISFSI until facilities are available for interim or permanent disposal.

9 purpose explain how o r whether the original purposes and needs for the ISFSI have been

addressed, whether they remain current, or how they have changed. PG&E initially applied for

an ISFSI license in 2001 because it was running out of storage space in the spent fuel storage

po ols. Having decided to apply for renewal of its operating licenses for the two Diablo Canyon

reactors, PG&E has now put itself in a similar position as in 2001, i.e., that it may not be able to

run the Diablo Canyon reactors for a full twenty years without running out of storage space in

the spent fuel pools. And even if PG&E does have space in the pools to allow the reactors to

operate for a full twenty years, it appears virtually certain that PG&E will not be able to

decommission the pools at the end of a twenty -year period of operating the reactors, because the

capacity of the ISFSI is only sufficient for the current inventory of spent fuel at the Diablo

Canyon plant. PG&E s Environmental Report is deficient because it does not address these

issues, or ho w they affect the alternatives analysis or the cumulative impact analysis for the

Environmental Assessment.

Finally, the Environmental Assessment does not address how the re -licensing of the

ISFSI will be consistent with two significant State policies re garding the creation and storage of

spent fuel. First, the Environmental Assessment does not address the inconsistency of creating

more spent fuel storage demands at Diablo Canyon with State law imposing a moratorium on

construction of new nuclear reactors for the very purpose of stopping the creation of additional

spent fuel inside the State s borders unless and until a repository is operational. 14 Second, the

14 As described by the Supreme Court in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Comm n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983):

Section 25524.1(b) of the California Public Resources Code provides tha t before a nuclear powerplant may be built, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission must determine on a case -by -case basis that there will be "adequate capacity" for interim storage of the plant's spent fuel at the time the plant

10 Environmental Assessment does not address how continued operation of the ISFSI, in

conjunction wi th continued operation of the reactors, will affect PG&E s compliance with the State s wish to expedite the transfer of spent fuel from the spent fuel pools to the ISFSI. 15

Therefore, the Environmental Assessment fails to sa tisfy 10 C.F.R. § § 52.30(a)(1)(i) or

51.45(b) because its discussion of the purpose and need for continued operation of the ISFSI is

inadequate to support the identificati on of a reasonable array of alternatives as required by 10

C.F.R. § § 52.30(a)(1)( ii) and 51.45(b)(3). T he Environmental Assessment also fails to sa tisfy 10

C.F.R. §§ 52.30(a)(1)(i ii) or 51. 23(c ) because it does not provide a reasonably accurate and

complete environmental impact analysis, including an analysi s of cumulative impacts.

requires such storage. Section 25524.2 imposes a moratorium on the certification of new nuclear plants until the State Commission finds that there has been developed, and that the United States through its authorized agency has approved, a demonstrated te chnology or means for the permanent and terminal disposal of high -level nuclear wastes.

15 See CPUC Decision 21 -09 -003, Adopting Settlement, Section 5 at 27 -28 (Sept. 9, 2021),

approving the following stipulation between PG&E and other parties:

5.1 PG&E agrees that its pending solicitation of vendors for spent fuel storage systems shall include performance specifications that: (1) enable the final offload of spent fuel from the Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pools within 4 years of the shutdown of Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively, subject to NRC licensing and other required regulatory approvals and (2) require that the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage systems must fit within the existing DC ISFSI licensed by the NRC and permitted by the County of San Luis Obispo and the California Coastal Commission.

5.2 In the event no vendor can develop a spent fuel storage system that: can meet a 4 -year spent nuclear fuel cooling period, be accommodated on the existing DC ISFSI, and is licensable by the NRC, PG &E will, in consultation with the CEC, se lect a vendor who will achieve transfer of spent fuel to the DC ISFSI as promptly as reasonably practicable, but in no event longer than 7 years.

See also id. Section 9.4 at 31, providing that:

The Settling Parties agree that the Charter of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee (DCISC) should be amended to extend its oversight role on nuclear sa fety matters until all spent nuclear fuel has been transferred from the spent fuel pools to the ISFSI.

11

2. Basis S tatement.

An environmental assessment must be a "'concise public document' th at '[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an [EIS]." 16 NRC

regulations require that an environmental assessment must discuss the need for the proposed

action. 17 An environmental report must also discuss the proposed action s purposes. 18 A

clearly defined purpose and need is necessary because the project s goals dictate the

range of alternatives. 19

PG&E s discussion of the purpose and need for renewal of the IS FSI license is

excessively narrow. This can be se en by comparing it to the discussion of purpose and need in

PG&E s original 2001 license application for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. PG&E s sta te d

purposes in seeking that license were two -fold. First, because no U.S. Department of Energy

( DOE ) repository was yet available for permanent storage of spent fuel as required by the

NWPA, PG&E asserted that spent fuel generated by [the Diablo Canyon reactors] will need to

remain [on the site] until a DOE or other facility is available. 20

Second, PG&E reasoned that it needed the ISFSI to keep the Diablo Canyon reactors

running past 2006 because the two spent fuel storage pools had already been re -racked and

would be filled to capacity by 2006. 21 Thus, PG&E assert ed that:

16 Dep't of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 757 (2004) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)).

17 10 C.F.R. § 51.30(a)(1)(i).

18 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(b).

19 City of Carmel -By -the Sea v. Dep t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9 th Cir. 1997); Citizens Against Burli ngame, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

20 Id. at 1.2 -1.

21 Id. at 1.1 -1. As described by PG&E:

12 The additional capacity to accommodate discharged spent fuel as proposed herein will allow DCPP to continue to generate electricity. Any interruption in the availability of this capacity would almost certainly cause a negative impact on the domes tic sector power supply in California. Considering the power supplies in California and in the western United States, as well as uncertainties about future power supplies, any loss of power from DCPP could have significant adverse impacts on the population, the infrastructure, and the economy. Expansion of the onsite spent fuel storage capacity at DCPP as planned by PG&E is necessary to avoid these potential significant negative impacts.22

The fact that the ISFSI was needed to keep the reactors running affected the array of alternatives

considered in the Environmental Assessment:

PG&E has considered several alternative means for accommodating the additional spent fuel that will be generate d at DCPP through the licensed operating life of each unit. The onsite alternatives include a second reracking of the spent fuel pools to replace the existing high density racks with racks of higher -density design, and building an onsite ISFSI using dry ca sk storage technology. PG&E has also considered the possibility of participating in the Private Fuel Storage venture, which has an application pending before the NRC for a license to independently store spent fuel from nuclear power plants. 23

Unit 1 began commercial operation in Ma y 1985 and Unit 2 in Ma rch 1986. The operating licenses expire in September 2021 for Unit 1 and April 2025 for Unit 2. In general, the operating and spent fuel storage histories of DCPP Unit 1 and Unit 2 are similar to those of other PWRs. The spent fuel storage racks were initially of low -density design, capable of accommodating only one and one -third co res of spent fuel assemblies.

These low -density racks were replaced in the late 1980s with high -density racks that are currently in use.

The spent fuel pool for each unit presently has sufficient capacity for the storage of 1,324 fuel assemblies. Each reactor core contains 193 fuel assemblies, and both units are currently operating on 18 - to 21 -month refueling cycles. Typically, 76 to 96 spent fuel assemblies are permanently discharged from each unit after a refueling. Each unit has ope rated for 10 fuel cycles and each is presently operating in its 11th cycle. Ba sed on the existing inventory and the expected generation of spent fuel, each spent fuel pool can accommodate the concurrent storage of a full core of irradiated fuel and the ant icipated quantity of spent fuel generated from prior refueling operations until 2006. After that time, an alternative means of spent fuel storage at DCPP must be provided unless the spent fuel can be shipped offsite.

22 Id. at 1.2 -2 (emphasis added).

23 Id. (emphasis added).

13 And the need to keep the reactors running affected PG&E s choice of dry storage from among

the available alternatives:

Based on an overall assessment of operational and safety considerations, the amount of spent fuel to be generated, the transportation requiremen ts associated with the alternatives, resources needed, and scheduling restraints, PG&E has concluded that dry cask storage of spent fuel at DCPP is the best available method at this time for providing the necessary storage capacity. However, as discussed b elow, increasing the spent fuel pool storage capacity through a second reracking with higher density racks remains a viable option if it appears that the Diablo Canyon ISFSI cannot be licensed on a schedule that me ets PG&E storage requirements.

The expand ed storage capacity provided by the use of dry casks at the ISFSI will be used to store aged spent fuel that has been stored for 5 years or longer in the DCPP spent fuel pools. The storage spaces in the respective spent fuel pools that become available fol lowing this transfer of the aged spent fuel into dry cask storage then can be used to store future discharged spent fuel from the reactor core. Storage casks will be acquired as needed to accommodate the spent fuel generated until shipment offsite occurs. 24

As discussed above, PG&E has now put itself in a similar position as in 2001, i.e., that it

may not be able to run the Diablo Canyon reactors for a full twenty years without running out of

storage space in the spent fuel pools. And even if PG&E does have space in the pools to allow

the reactors to operate for a full twenty years, it appears virtually certain that PG&E will not be

able to decommission the pools at the end of a twenty -year period of operating the reactors,

because the capacity of the IS FSI is only sufficient for the current inventory of spent fuel at the

Diablo Canyon plant. PG&E s Environmental Report is deficient because it does not address

these issues or how they affect the alternatives analysis or the cumulative impact analysis for the

Environmental Assessment. PG&E s Environmental Report is also deficient because it fails to

address the inconsistency between its representations about the limited capacity of the ISFSI and

the unqualified representation in the UFSAR that seven stora ge pads provide sufficient storage

24 Id. (emphasis added).

14 space for DCPP spent fuel through plant decommissioning. 25 PG&E must be required to explain

the discrepancy between the 2022 ISFSI License Renewal Application and the UFSAR.

In addition, the Environmental Report does not address the consistency of re -licensing

the ISFSI and possibly accommodating additional spent fuel with two important policies of the

State of California. Discussion of these State policies is now particularly important because the

passage of SB 846 ha s effectively transformed PG&E into a contractor with the State. 26

First, PG&E should address the consistency of creating more spent fuel and spent fuel

storage demands at Diablo Canyon with a 1976 State law imposing a moratorium on the creation

of more spent fuel by banning new reactor construction. 27 While that law does not apply to

Diablo Canyon because it was passed after PG&E received its construction permits for Diablo

Canyon in 1968 and 1970, the underlying policy of preventing the generation of m ore spent fuel

and its attendant costs and liabilities is applicable. 28 Therefore, it must be considered.

25 Id. at 4.1 -2.

26 See, e.g., reported statement by PG&E Director of Strategic Initiatives Phillipe Soenen to the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee at its September 28 -29, 2022 Public Meeting that with the passage of SB 846 PG&E is becoming a contractor to the State of California and it intends to fulfill that contract and serve not just PG&E s customers but also all 58 counties in California and to support approximately 40 load -serving entities ac ross the State of California.

Agenda Packet Draft - February 1, 2023 at B 38.

27 As described by the Supreme Court in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Comm n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983):

Section 25524.1(b) of the California Public Resources Code provides that before a nuclear powerplant may be built, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission must determine on a case -by -case basis that there will be "adequate capacity" for interim storage of the plant's spent fuel at the time the plant requires such storage. Section 25524.2 imposes a moratorium on the certification of new nuclear plants until the State Commission finds that there has been developed, and that the United States through its authorized agency has approved, a demonstrated technology or means for the permanent and terminal disposal of high -level nuclear wastes.

28 See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 861 U.S. at 195.

15 In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC ) has directed PG&E to

undertake an investigation of the feasibility of expediting tr ansfer of spent fuel from the pools to the ISFSI. 29 The State s initiative is significant and serious, as witnessed by the fact that PG&E

has contracted with Orano TN Americas for use of the NUHOMS -EOS cask system going forward. 30 The principal purpose of switching to Orano is that their casks can accommodate

hotter fuel and therefore its use will speed up the transfer process. 31 PG&E should discuss how

the renewal of the ISFSI license would affect the State s developing policy to encourage

expedited transfer of spent fuel from the pools to the ISFSI.

Providing an accurate and complete identification and discussion of the purpo se s and

needs of the Diablo Canyon ISFSI may affect the consideration of alternatives. For instance,

while PG&E now proposes to maintain the sa me storage capacity of the ISFSI, that capacity may

not be adequate to meet PG&E s needs for either continued ope ration of the reactors or

expedited transfer of the spent fuel from the pools to the ISFSI following decommissioning.

Alternatives for increasing the capacity of the ISFSI or adding another ISFSI should be

considered, including their relative costs and be nefits. In addition, the cumulative impacts of

adding yet another spent fuel facility should be considered.

29 Letter from Maureen R. Zawalick PG&E to NRC re: Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Irradiated Fuel Management Plan, Revision 1 (Oct. 2, 2022) ( Zawalick Letter ). As shown in Table 2a of the letter s Enclosure, PG&E anticipated being able to transfer all of the spent fuel in the pools to the ISFSI by 2028.

30 Zawalik Letter.

31 Id.

16

3. Demonstration that the contention is within the scope of the proceeding.

T his contention is within the scope of the license renewal proceeding for the Diablo

Canyon ISFSI because it seeks compliance by PG&E with NEPA and NRC implementing

regulations.

4. Demonstration that the contention is material to the findings NRC must make to renew the Diablo Canyon ISFSI license.

This Contention is material to the findings NRC must make regarding PG&E s

compliance with NEPA because it demonstrates the inadequacy of PG&E s environmental

analysis to sa tisfy the requirements of NEPA.

5. Concise statement of the facts or expert opinio n supporting the contention, along with appropriate citations to supporting scientific or factual materials.

The facts supporting SLOMFP s contention are se t forth in official PG&E and

government documents as cited in the Statement of the Contention and Ba sis Statement.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, SLOMFP has demonstrated its standing to request a hearing and

intervene in this proceeding and has submitted two admissible contentions. Accordingly, the

NRC should grant SLOMFP a hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

__/signed electronically by/___

Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1725 DeSales Street N.W., Suite 500 Wash ington, D.C. 20036 240 - 393 -9285 dcurran@harmoncurran.com

Ma rch 13, 2020

17 ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA NIUM,AR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY

in the nialtet of Pacific Gas and Electric Ccarmans. Doelret No 72-:l6 Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Installation

DECLARATION OF LINDA SEELEY L rider penalty of perjury. Linda Seeley declares as follows

I My name is Linda Seeley I am a member of San Luis Obispo Slathers for Peace SLOMFP I

!live at 1512 7e Street, Los Oscs, California. My hone is located w ithin eight milts of the Diablo Canyon Unit I and Unit 2 nuclear reactors and the independerti spent fuel storage i ristallation (ISFSI) an Se Diablo Canyea ace

3 I am aware that the licentee oifthe DiabloCaryon ISFSL Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E I. has requested the LI S. Maker Regulaccy Commission (NRC) to renew the ISFS1 lionise for 40 yews

4 For the reasons set forth in SLOWIP's Rapes for Hearing and Pennon to Intervene Ito be submitted to the NRC on March 13, 2fC3). I are concerned that the continued opcsation of the Diablo Canyon ISF5I will jeopardize the health and safety of myself and my family, the quality. of Out Wan:0MM addle Value Of Out property

S therefore, I has e authorized SL0MFP to represent my interests by mquestsnit a hearing and petitioning to intervene in the 1SISII bailee renewal prcceedinst

March 10.2023 ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY

In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Docket No. 72 -26 Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Installation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on Ma rch 13, 2023, I attempted to post SAN LUIS OBISPO MO THERS FOR PEACE S HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE IN LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEEDING FOR DIABLO CAN YON SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION HEARING REQUEST, including Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4, on the NRC s Electronic Information Exchange. Howev er, I did not have access to the EIE portal. Therefore, I served the documents by email on the fo llowing:

B rook e Pool Clark, Secret ary to the Commission, nrcexecsec@nrc.gov

Ryan Lighty, Counsel to PG&E, ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com

Paul Be sse tte, Coun se l to PG&E, paul.bessette@morganlewis.com

Timothy Matthews, Counsel to PG&E, timo thy. matt hews@ morganlewis.com

NRC Hearing Docket, hearing.docket@nrc.gov

NRC Office of General Counsel, ridsogc mailcenter.resource@nrc.gov

The documents will be posted on the NRC s EIE portal on Tuesday, Ma rch 14, 2023, as soon as access is provided.

___/signed electronically b y/__

Diane Curran

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY

In the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Docket No. 72-26 Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Installation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 14, 2014, I posted SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACES HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE IN LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEEDING FOR DIABLO CANYON SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION HEARING REQUEST, including Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4, on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange.

___/signed electronically by/__

Diane Curran