ML25008A049
| ML25008A049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/2024 |
| From: | Mcclintock F - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2023-0192, 89FR87433 00020, NUREG-1437 | |
| Download: ML25008A049 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 1/7/25, 5:07 PM Received: December 14, 2024 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. m4o-ubkg-gb7o Comments Due: December 16, 2024 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2023-0192 Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Comment On: NRC-2023-0192-0013 Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2023-0192-DRAFT-0029 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-25444 Submitter Information Name: Francene McClintock Address: United States, General Comment Please see my full comments in the PDF attached. Thank you for your consideration!
Attachments NUREG-1437-Supplement 62-draft-Comments 1/7/25, 5:08 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/56f18875-5c85-4746-ace9-fb91ac924b30 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/56f18875-5c85-4746-ace9-fb91ac924b30 1/1 SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Kim Conway, Antoinette Walker-Smith, Mary Neely Comment (20)
Publication Date:
11/1/2024 Citation: 89 FR 87433
NUREG-1437 Supplement 62 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 62 Regarding License Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 October 2024 Xxi Proposed Federal Action The 36 regulation in 10 CFR 2.109 (TN6204),
Effect of Timely Renewal Application, specifies that if a 37 licensee of a nuclear power plant files an application to renew an operating license at least 38 5 years before the expiration date of that license, the existing license will not be deemed to have 39 expired until the NRC completes its safety and environmental reviews, and makes a final 40 xxii decision about whether to issue a renewed license. On March 2, 2023, the NRC issued to 1
PG&E an exemption from this rule stating that if PG&E submits a license renewal application 2
less than 5 years prior to expiration of the existing licenses but no later than December 31, 3
2023, and if the NRC staff finds it acceptable for docketing, the existing licenses will be in timely 4
renewal under NRC regulations until the NRC has made a final determination on whether to 5
approve the license renewal application (88 FR 14395-TN9998). As noted above, PG&E 6
submitted the license renewal application for Diablo Canyon by letter dated November 7, 2023, 7
and the NRC found that application acceptable for docketing on December 19, 2023, and, 8
therefore, the Diablo Canyon licenses are in for timely renewal under NRC regulations until the 9
NRC has made a final determination on whether to approve the license renewal application.
This exception should not have been permitted. Foul Play against California residents and planetary residents.
New and significant information:
xxii Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 11 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of operating licenses) is to provide an 12 option that allows for baseload power generation capability beyond the term of the current 13 nuclear power plant operating licenses to meet future system generating needs, as such needs 14 may be determined by State, utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) 15 decision-makers.
This license renewal is not needed. There is plenty of power in CA. Governor Newsom was misled.
PG&E Costs Soar to Almost $12B For Keeping Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Online Through 2030 YouTube.com Transcript Excerpt:
John Geesman. Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility:
Thank you Ken (Cook) I represent an organization called The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility in front of the California Public Utilities Commission. We filed a protest against PG&Es cost recovery application and that protest traces the escalation of cost estimates using PG&Es numbers since 2022 and it's really quite shocking. In 2022 when the legislation passed, PG&E submitted a Grant application to the federal government and used that same cost forecast with the Public Utilities Commission. Last May that number was 5.2 billion dollars to extend the operation of Diablo Canyon until 2030. Within 60 days in the PUC process last year (2023?) PG&E had increased that estimate from 5.2 billion up to 8.1 billion. Now the PUC ultimately determined that PG&Es cost forecast at 8.1 billion was incomplete and had not included necessary elements of what they will ultimately charge the rate payers. So the PUC said you've left us with no basis upon which to determine that going forward (the charges to the ratepayer) will be reasonable, prudent or cost effective. The PUC had a statutory deadline, so they extended the retirement dates but they said we want you, PG&E, to come back in 2024, no later than March 29th with a complete forecast, one that includes every dollar that you contemplate charging the rate payers between now and the end of the extended operation period in 2030.
PG&E made that filing. We've gone through it with a fine tooth comb and it amounts to 11.8 billion. That's more than a doubling from the number that was used in 2022 to persuade the governor and the legislature to go forward with the extension. And let me put that in a slightly different context. In 2022 the
governor's office told the legislature that they were expecting it to cost about
$75 a megawatt hour. PG&Es current forecast, using the 11.8 billion sum, works out to about $130 a megawatt hour, a rough doubling.
Now this plant has had above Market costs for a long time. PG&Es Grant application in 2022 acknowledged more than 2.1 billion dollars in above Market costs in the five years before they submitted the grant. Their current forecast indicates in the next five years, during the extended operation period, they expect above Market costs more than $4.1 billion dollars. The Public Utilities Commission, in May of this year, issued a report that required the (?) to do so (report) every year on performance under the state's renewable portfolio standard and they indicated that new contracts signed for renewable projects in 2023 had come in at $58 a megawatt hour. Contracts signed in 2022 were at
$62 a megawatt hour. So Diablo Canyon, using PG&Es own numbers is more than double the cost of these renewable projects according to the Public Utilities Commission (i.e.$130 a megawatt hour).
Now why is this plant so expensive? You can see that in PG&Es cost recovery application. Now they prefer to parcel things out. They very much resist giving you a look at the entire cost stream to 2030 so they've only requested recovery of the first year. They call that test year 2025 and they're asking for a little more than a billion dollars. In fact, it's 1 billion. $30,485,577 of that $1 billion they identify $497 million in what they call statutory fees. Those are the inducements that the legislature and the governor had to provide PG&E in order to get them to extend operation of the plant. If you recall in 2022 the great concern about keeping the lights on, would we need additional power for reliability purposes?,
and my client's going to take a backseat to nobody in terms of the importance of keeping the lights on. But the Public Utilities Commission, the energy commission, again in a May 2024 report indicated that that the Nome Administration has done a pretty good job of bringing new resources on. 18,800 megawatts of net qualifying capacity are expected to come online between 2020 and 2028. The Joint report of the two agencies indicated that the commission's preferred system plan meets the reliability standard through 2035. It also indicated that more than 8,000 megawatt of net qualifying capacity were online by the end of 2023. Now remember Diablo Canyon is worth about 2,240 megawatts. What the Public Utilities Commission and the energy commission report is indicating is that resources more than three times that amount were online by the end of the year last year. In fact, the report identifies additional analysis performed by the energy commission. With this comment, the state remains reliable even under extreme scenarios. So the question is, and the state agencies are going to have to resolve this year, is there a better way to spend 11.8 billion? Would you buy twice as much in the way of reliability
benefits or twice as much in the way of climate benefits if you directed those dollars toward renewable projects rather than propping up an old nuclear plant that is surrounded by earthquake faults?
Peter Bradford:
Beyond just the present increases, other safety issues have cost implications for Diablo Canyon that are not in these projections, even the latest ones. If these seismic and reactor Integrity concerns need fixing, more large increases can be expected. The doubling of a large cost estimate in less than a year is all too common in the nuclear power industry and it's usually a sign of more large increases to come. By the time the process is over, customers and tax payers will have paid a bill that would never have been approved if it had been candidly stated at the outset. The approval comes about through essentially salami tactics, in which the cost increases are divided into small amounts and the argument is always, Yes it's unfortunate. We wish we'd known this at the outset. But it won't cost that much more to go forward. To make matters worse, other cheaper low carbon electricity sources will have been crowded out in favor of a nuclear plant that must be run in order to recover its excessive costs. The California legislature was wise enough to write off-ramps into the legislation paving the way for extended Diablo Canyon operation.
Nothing cries OFF-RAMP more loudly than the doubling of a multi-billion dollar cost estimate in a little more than a year's time.
Ken Cook:
Peter thank you so much I think the picture that's emerging is a chronic record of vast cost underestimates by the nuclear industry on top of public questions about the ability of PG&E to frankly state the costs for any of its operations and seek recovery of those, including recovery from the enormous costs human and economic it has created through the massive wildfires started by its failure to maintain its equipment. So you have sort of a combination of two highly dubious sources of information to rest our future spending as rate payers in California on and that should be troubling for everybody. By the way, if PG&E has a a different set of numbers, it would be great to see them, but from my standpoint, I think what John has done is dug out in detail and reinforced by Peter's observations about this pattern in the nuclear industry, a very troubling picture. We should have had these answers two years ago but as Peter says maybe the bill wouldn't have gone forward if we had.
New and significant information:
xxvi Recommendation
2 The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of 3
license renewal for Diablo Canyon are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal 4
for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. This preliminary recommendation 5
is based on:
6
- the analysis and findings in the LR GEIS 7
- the ER submitted by the applicant 8
- the NRC staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies 9
- the NRC staffs independent environmental review 10
- the NRC staffs consideration of public comments The adverse environmental impacts are great and the license should not be renewed.
Three nuclear reactors melted down at Fukushima in 2011 (Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit
- 3) with three exploding (Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4) and, in the case of reactor #3, it was MOX fuel that was spread throughout our atmosphere, with some particles landing on the arctic ice (and in Seattle and elsewhere). Unit 4 contained a spent fuel pool that exploded. Three of the reactor cores are leaking hot radionuclides into the Pacific Ocean forever. That heated Pacific Ocean water passes through the Bering Strait and melts the Arctic ice. Videos show Arctic ice melting from the Bering Strait, west side of the Arctic ice sheet in 2012 and on. 2012 is also when Greenland melted from all the atmospheric heat released at Fukushima.
2011-2012 is also when the jet stream stalled and has been affected to this day from the heat consequences of GE American nuclear reactors in Japan that exploded. This should have closed down the industry but instead the cover-up began. Radiation monitors were turned off and food, water and product radiation acceptable levels were raised. There was then a push for Americans to consume MORE electricity, keep everything plugged in 24/7 (including your new Microsoft X-box) and living off-grid has been violently discouraged. And now we have AI and cryptocurrency and the threat that there wont be enough power.
Lets regain our senses and use renewables, solar/wind/alcohol, for electricity generation and shut down the heat and cancer producing nuclear industry.
All nuke plants (and some other plants as well) take in water and dump it back out hotter into our oceans, rivers and lakes. In the case of nuke plants, radionuclides are present in that water. Our earth is a closed loop system. The hot, radioactive water migrates to the ice and melts it. Plus radionuclides give off heat (some forever) as they decay. The CO2 traps the
heat but THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS THE HEAT GENERATOR. How many plants use water to cool off their systems, using our precious water as a heat sink and a dumping ground for their chemical/radioactive waste?
Diablo Canyon is allowed to release water and effluent up to 25 degrees F warmer than the intake temperature during normal operations and up to 50 degrees F warmer one hour/day during demussleing. Over the years, the intake temperature rises and so does the outflow temperature. THERE IS NO CAP on how hot the intake temperature can be. The policy just allows the 25 degrees F to 50 degrees F increase over the intake temperature.
That sets up a vicious cycle to continuously increase the temperature of our oceans which increases the intake temperature. And that is what is happening as the ice is melting at the polar caps of our planet.
To get the entire world-wide oceanic, lake, river, stream picture:
Boiling water reactors operate at 285 degrees C = 545 degrees F Pressure water reactors operate at 315 degrees C = 599 degrees F Nuclear fission power plants: 440 plants world-wide (not counting the military) operating 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />s/day, 7 days/week, 365 days/year with planned outages every 18-21 months to re-fuel and then start the radioactive heat process back up. All to boil water at 212 degrees F to produce steam that turns a turbine.
Its like cutting butter with a chainsaw.
Nuclear fusion:
150,000,000 degrees C is 270,000,032 degrees F. They have put a sun on planet earth and they call it a "clean energy source"!
Its time to stop heating this planet. Do not re-license Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2.
2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 9
Diablo Canyon uses a once-through (open-cycle) cooling water intake system that withdraws 10 water from and discharges recirculating water, along with other effluents, back to the Pacific 11 Ocean (Figure 2-4). The Pacific Ocean is the primary water source for all onsite uses, including 12 for condenser cooling, and it also serves as the ultimate heat sink for Diablo Canyon.
LARGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Nuclear power is changing the climate, adding to the increasing planetary temperatures. You do not have the planets permission to use the oceans as your HEAT SINK. You do not have the oceans permission to heat it up.
Page 2-6 Using maximum pump ratings, total once-through cooling flow during 14 routine full power operations is 1,772,000 gpm (6,707,750 lpm), equivalent to approximately 15 16 2.5 billion gallons (9.5 billion liters) of seawater circulated per day (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
So you are making 2.5 billion gallons of seawater radioactive every day. Thats NOT OK.
2.1.3.4 Chemical Treatment System 17 The chlorination system provides chemical treatment of the circulating water to control the 18 macro and micro fouling in the intake tunnels, piping, and the condenser tubes. The system is 19 used as needed. Liquid sodium hypochlorite and a supplemental chemical, sodium bromide, are 20 stored in tanks at the intake structure (common to both units). Sodium bisulfite may be injected 21 into the CWS at the seawater main condensers to neutralize residual chlorine prior to discharge 22 to maintain residual chlorine below the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 23 (NPDES) discharge limits. Adequate valving is provided for isolating any of the tanks from the 24 system. Each tank is within a secondary containment tank sized to contain the entire contents of 25 the storage tank. When chlorination is required (based on a time schedule), the chemicals are 26 27 injected via metering pumps and injected into the intake structure (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
Chlorine released into the seawater also. This is NOT OK.
Diablo Canyons current 40 NPDES permit establishes a maximum temperature rise (Delta T) of 22°F (12.2°C) above the 41 average daily natural temperature of the ocean intake water.
Except on page 3-82 you add to the above statement, an allowance up to 50 degrees F one hour per day!:
NPDES Permit Provisions Pertaining to Thermal Effluent Discharges 23 The Diablo Canyon NPDES permit contains effluent limitation criteria and receiving water 24 limitations. NPDES permit Effluent Limitation B.1(f) specifies that the daily average discharge
25 temperature shall not exceed the daily average of the natural temperature of the intake water by 26 more than 22°F (12.2°C) except during heat treatment for demusseling. During heat treatment, 27 PG&E follows the NPDES permit Effluent Limitation B.1(g), which specifies that the daily 28 average discharge temperature shall not exceed the daily average of the natural temperature of 29 the intake water by more than 25°F (13.9°C), and the maximum temperature increase (delta T) 30 measured at the point of discharge of the unit being treated shall be less than 50°F (27.8°C) 31 over that of the intake. The duration of maximum temperature during heat treatment of any half-32 condenser shall not exceed 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> during any 24-hour period.
You are heating the water. This rule allows you to heat the water forever no matter how hot the water gets. There is no temperature cap! You have made the daily natural temperature of the ocean into an unnatural temperature that is far higher than it used to be before nuclear power plants went online. Maine Yankee dumped 1,823.338 curies into Montsweag Bay over a five year sample period. This was mostly Tritium. That Tritiums still out there releasing heat as it decays.
Page 2-10 2.2.2 Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License Renewal As a result of its evaluation of SSCs, PG&E did not identify the need to undertake any major 8
refurbishment or replacement activities associated with LR to support the continued operation of 9
Diablo Canyon beyond the end of the existing operating licenses. Therefore, refurbishment 10 11 activities are not discussed under the proposed action in Chapter 3 of this SEIS.
WHAT ABOUT SALT WATER CORROSION? Thats how Maine Yankee shut down. What about the possibility of a leak in the vault pipes? What about embrittlement?
Page 2-11 2.2.3 Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning after the 12 License Renewal Term Decommissioning will occur whether Diablo Canyon is shut down at the end of its current 26 operating licenses or at the end of the period of extended operation 20 years later. The 2024 27 LR GEIS identifies decommissioning as a Category 1 issue and concludes that LR would have a
28 negligible (SMALL) effect on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning on all 29 30 resources (NRC 2024-TN10161).
THIS ASSUMES THERE IS NO FUTURE ACCIDENT. A FUTURE ACCIDENT WOULD HAVE A LARGE IMPACT ON DECOMMISSIONING. LETS STOP WHILE WE ARE AHEAD. CLOSE THE PLANT DOWN. I BELIEVE IN PREVENTION.
Page 2-11 2.3 Alternatives For a replacement energy alternative 33 to be considered reasonable, it must be either (1) commercially viable on a utility scale and 34 operational before the plants operating licenses expire or (2) expected to become commercially 35 viable on a utility scale and operational before the plants operating licenses expire.
This is unreasonable. We dont need Diablo Canyons power now. You are forcing us into a timeline so that the plants are re-licensed for another 20 years.
Page 2-12 2.3.1 No-Action Alternative 1
Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not renew the Diablo Canyon operating 2
3 licenses, and Units 1 and 2 would shut down on or before their licenses expiration dates.
IM IN FAVOR OF THIS. We already have enough power through renewables. Alcohol from kelp farming can be added to the mix as a base load power ASAP. Refer to comments submitted by David Blume.
New and significant information:
2.4.2 Solar Power Solar generators are considered an intermittent electrical power resource because their 13 availability depends on exposure to the sun, also known as solar insolation. To be viable, a 14 utility-scale solar power alternative must replace the amount of electrical power that Diablo 15 Canyon currently provides. Assuming a capacity factor of 32.8 percent, approximately 7,000 MW 16 of additional solar energy capacity would need to be installed to replace the 2,285 MW of 17 electricity generated by Diablo Canyon (NREL 2022-TN9823). Based on an estimate of 4 ac 18
(2 ha) of land per MW, this would require approximately 28,000 ac (11,331 ha) of land.
Please refer to Harvey Wassermans comments. He wants to completely solarize the LA Olympics using rooftops, parking areas and the LA river. The Olympics are in 2028. We do not need nuclear power. We need you to shut Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Unit 2 down.
New and significant information:
2.4.4 Biomass Power Biomass fuels used for power generation include agricultural residues, animal manure, wood 30 wastes from forestry and industry, residues from food and paper industries, municipal green 31 wastes, dedicated energy crops, and methane from landfills (IEA 2007-TN8436). Baseload 32 biomass fuel-fired power generation depends on the geographic distribution, available 33 quantities, constancy of supply, and energy content of biomass resources. As of 2022, biomass 34 in California powered approximately 2 percent of total State electricity, most of that from wood 35 fuel (DOE/EIA 2023-TN9828). For this analysis, biomass fuel would be combusted for power 36 generation in the electricity sector.
37 For utility scale biomass fuel-fired electricity generation, technologies used for biomass energy 38 conversion would be similar to the technology used in fossil fuel-fired power plants, including the 39 direct combustion of biomass fuel in a boiler to produce steam (NRC 2024-TN10161).
40 Accordingly, biomass electricity generation is considered a carbon-emitting technology.
41 Fossil fuels are below ground and when you bring them to the surface and burn them, they ADD carbon to the atmosphere. Above ground ANNUAL plants are within the natural carbon cycle. They can be burned for fuel which emits the carbon but then when re-grown, they take in the carbon. Annual plants are considered to be at the least carbon neutral and some CARBON NEGATIVE.
New and significant information:
2-17 Biomass energy generation is generally more cost-effective when co-located with coal-fired 1
power plants (IEA 2007-TN8436). However, most biomass fuel-fired power plants only generate
2 50 MWe, which means that replacing Diablo Canyons generating capacity, using only biomass 3
fuel, would require the construction of 46 power plants. Increasing biomass fuel-fired generation 4
capacity by expanding existing or constructing new units by the time the Diablo Canyon 5
operating licenses expire is unlikely. For these reasons, biomass fuel-fired power generation is 6
7 not a reasonable alternative to Diablo Canyon LR.
I take exception to the above statements. Alcohol can be used in existing power plants.
David Blumes ALCOHOL CAN BE A GAS! Book 2 Making Alcohol: How To Do It. c 2007 The Untapped Potential. Pages 156 to 157 Excerpt The potential impact of a crop such as algae cant be ignored. The attraction of marine algae over land plants is that algae dont have to fight gravity. As a result, the cellulose-lignin structures that give land plants their structural integrity and ability to stand up arent needed.
Thus, much more the plants energy goes into growth and carbohydrate production.
Kelp can grow inches or even more than a foot per day! Another big advantage is that in many locations no fertilizer is necessary to produce it. Kelp lives in a hydroponic solution, also known as the ocean. Nutrient-limiting factors on growth evaporate where kelp is cultivated near river outflows containing sewage entering the ocean. (102)
Kelps foot-a-day growth is primarily limited by the level of dissolved carbon dioxide in the water. If kelp-to-alcohol plants were built, kelp farms could return the fermentation carbon dioxide to themselves, bubbling it through the kelp, increasing growth. This would generate more oxygen and cool the water further.
So lets design an energy system to work as a crash program of kelp farming for energy.
There are major ecological reasons to do so. The United Nations has concluded that there are 150 intermittent or permanent dead zones in the world today. (103) These are areas of ocean where the elevated nitrogen causes a population boom and the decompensation of microscopic algae. In the process of decomposition, all the oxygen in the water is consumed, killing off sea life. Some of the dead zones, like the one in the Baltic, are over 62,000 square miles in size! Although no one has fully measured the extent of the Mississippi/Gulf dead zone, it is at least 20,700 square kilometers (7992 square miles). All along the East Coast and at river mouths on the West Coast, there are dead zones or areas with very elevated nitrogen levels.
It may already be necessary to start these kelp farms for their water-cooling-function in order to save the Pacific fisheries. Due to warming of the water along the California, Oregon, and Washington coasts, krill have disappeared. Although they are called zooplankton, krill get to be one to two inches long. Animals from birds to whales depend on them for food.
Its the krill that drive the food web dynamics off this coast, said Ellie Cohen, the Executive director of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory in California. Their absence has tremendous implications for everything out there, right up to the humpback and blue whales. We dont know if this is a result of global warmingbut without the krill, you could be looking at a food web collapse. (104)
Water temperatures along the Gulf of Alaska are the highest theyve been in 50 years. (105)
This effect does not match the usual patterns of El Nino and seems to be the result of global warming. If the water doesnt cool, then phytoplankton and krill that eat it cannot survive. So massive kelp farming might have to be implemented to locally absorb solar energy and cool the ocean surface so that plankton can survive and feed the food chain.
In the process of growth, kelp produces oxygen while absorbing carbon dioxide dissolved in the water. So, kelp farms would be oxygen-rich oases for sea life in the dead zones. Putting massive seaweed farms in the Gulf, for instance, would dramatically cool the surface water, since the solar energy would be turning into kelp carbohydrates instead of heated water. This would serve as a buffer against hurricanes, causing them to cool and stumble down a couple of categories before hitting land. We could convert the oil platforms to plants that process seaweed for alcohol, and pipe it to shore.
The liquid stillage remaining after distillation would resemble the kelp solution currently used by organic and other farmers as a natural wide-spectrum fertilizer. In Norway and China, kelp is dried in large quantities for kelp meal or kelp solutions as fertilizer. If we adopted a national strategy to implement kelp farms, the amount of chemical phosphorus and potassium fertilizers used by farmers would dwindle to zero, since the forms found in kelp solutions are superior.
This plan would also go a long way toward eliminating the toxic, and in some cases, radioactive, chemicals released into the environment as byproducts of current production of commercial fertilizers. So alcohol production could be seen as a byproduct of producing non-toxic, petroleum-free fertilizers for the nations agriculture.
Do you think I am proposing an outlandish scheme? In looking at kelp for methane production, the American Gas Association, hardly a wild-eyed utopian group of tree huggers, estimated somewhere near 23 quads (23 quadrillion Btu) a year of methane from kelp just from the California coast. (106) If the kelp was first fermented to make alcohol and the remaining mash was then fermented a second time for methane, to be used primarily for alcohol plant energy, about a third of that energy would be recovered as alcohol. This might be almost 90 billion gallons of fuel from the California Coast alone.
The remaining two-thirds of the energy as methane would provide all the alcohol plant process energy plus a huge surplus of gas/
electricity. Thats roughly half of the transportation fuel the U.S.
currently uses per year. Add to this the potential production from the Oregon and Washington Coasts, the nutrient-saturated dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico, and possibly the outflow from Chesapeake Bay.
Looks like weve replaced all the transportation fuel for the U.S. just from marine algae, as well as the lions share of natural gas and electricity, as well. All without using a square foot of farmland.
So then all wed have to do would be to nationalize the now-useless oil pipelines to send some of the alcohol and all of the digested liquid kelp to fertilize our nations agricultural heartland. Of course, building such kelp farms would be a massive undertaking, but if building 41,000 miles of highways to carry our vehicles or mounting a $500 billion war for oil in Iraq doesnt intimidate our Congress, then neither should a project like this which neatly solves many problems in one stroke.
REFERENCES
(102). Cheng.
(103). United Nations Environmental Program, GEO: Global Environment Outlet Year Book 2004/2005, www.unep.org/GEO/pdfs/GEO%20YEARBOOK%202004%20(ENG).pdf, as referenced in Janet Ralof, Dead Waters, Science News Online 165:23, June 5, 2004 (November 10, 2006).
(104). Glen Martin, Sea life in Peril Plankton Vanishing; Usual Seasonal Influx of Cold Water Isnt Happening, San Francisco Chronicle, July 12, 2005, Sec. A1.
(105). Martin.
(106). Robert Hodam, Energy Farming (California Energy Commission, 1978).
New and significant information:
Page 2-18 2.4.9 Natural Gas-Fired, Petroleum-Fired, and Coal-Fired Power 36 The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018 requires that all retail electricity sales in the State of 37 California must come from renewable and zero-carbon-emitting resources by the end of 2045 38 (CA Utilities Code 454.53-TN9910). Additionally, in 2022, the California Air Resources Board 39 committed to not build new fossil-fuel power plants (CARB 2022-TN9829). As such, new natural 40 gas-fired, petroleum-fired, or coal-fired power plants are not reasonable alternatives to Diablo 41 Canyon LR.
Natural gas produced from above-ground plants is CARBON NEGATIVE and would satisfy the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018.
Page 2-20 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives Based on the review of the 17 replacement power alternatives, the no-action alternative, and the proposed action, the 18 environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staffs 19 preliminary recommendation is to renew the Diablo Canyon operating licenses.
You are biased and ill-informed. Definitely not my choice.
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 1
AND MITIGATING ACTIONS 2
3 3.1 Introduction This chapter also describes reasonably foreseeable environmental trends. The 13 effects of ongoing reactor operations at Diablo Canyon have become well established as 14 15 environmental conditions have adjusted to the presence of the facility.1 YES, WE HAVE ALL MUTATED.
Page 3-6 3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources Page 3-8 3.2.3.2 Offsite Land Use Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the impact of continued 27 nuclear power plant operations on offsite land use during the Diablo Canyon LR term would be 28 SMALL.
You forgot to mention the off-site land use in Utah and Texas. You forgot to mention the proposed high level dumpsite. Because of off-site land use the environmental benefits of shutting down Diablo Canyon are LARGE. All the dumps in history are leaking. Maine Yankee sent a total of 2,368.2393 curies to Barnwell, South Carolina and brokers over a 5 year sample period. Larger curie counts included CS-134, Ni-63, Co-60, FE-55, Co-58 and CS-134.
Page 3-7 3.2.1.2 Coastal Zone Diablo Canyon was constructed prior to the enactment of the CZMA and, therefore, its 21 compliance with the enforceable policies of the California coastal management program was not 22 previously reviewed by the State. In November 2023, PG&E submitted a Federal consistency 23 certification to the NRC and to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) stating its position that 24 continued operation of [Diablo Canyon] complies with Californias coastal management program 25 and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program. In response, on December 7, 26 2023, the CCC informed PG&E that it needs more information before it can consider the Diablo 27 Canyon license renewal consistency certification. Discussions between PG&E and the CCC are 28 ongoing; to date, the CCC has not notified the NRC and PG&E whether it concurs with or 29 objects to the consistency certification.
CCC did not grant the Diablo Canyon license renewal consistency certification.
New and significant information:
Page 3-7 31 3.2.1.3 Offsite Land Use.
San Luis Obispo County occupies approximately 2,112,394 ac (854,856 ha), of which 34 931,291 ac (376,880 ha) are farmland, with a total of 2,349 farms. Primary farm crops include 35 orchards, vegetables, forage, and corn. Other products include livestock commodities such as 36 cattle and calves, sheep and lambs, and hogs and pigs.
37 There have been studies conducted in England that found radionuclides on farmland and in crops, up to one mile inland from the coast. This is due to radioactive fog. The grazing animals would also be exposed. Since Fukushima, we now have radioactive fog along the West coast affecting our crops in an ongoing, forever nature. Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 only add to our radioactive fog problem.
Page 3-8 3.2.3.1 Onsite Land Use Operational activities during the LR term would be similar to those already occurring at Diablo 17 Canyon. Industrial land use conditions would continue unchanged. Based on this information, 18 the NRC staff concludes that the impact of continued nuclear power plant operations on onsite 19 land use during the Diablo Canyon LR term would be SMALL. In addition, the NRC staff did not 20 identify any new onsite land use information that would alter this conclusion.
21 3.2.3.2 Offsite Land Use 22 LR activities have generally had little to no effect on population or tax revenue in communities 23 near nuclear power plants. Operational activities during the LR term, including periodic nuclear 24 refueling outages requiring temporary staff, would be similar to those already occurring at the 25 nuclear power plant and would not affect offsite land use beyond what has already been 26 affected. Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the impact of continued 27 nuclear power plant operations on offsite land use during the Diablo Canyon LR term would be 28 SMALL. In addition, the NRC staff did not identify any new offsite land use information that 29
would alter this conclusion.
30 Closing Diablo Canyon would have LARGE beneficial effects to the immediate environment and to Utah and Texas. Closing Diablo Canyon would also decrease the curies in the proposed offsite high level dump.
3.2.3 Proposed Action Page 3-9 As described in the LR GEIS (NRC 2024-TN10161) and as cited in Table 3-1, for generic issues 11 related to land use and visual resources, the impacts of nuclear power plant LR and continued 12 operations would be SMALL Visual impacts are large to me. I do not like looking at a nuclear power plant. I prefer No-action. If there is an accident, the visual will change. Look at what Fukushima looks like now.
3.2.4 No-Action Alternative 9
3.2.4.1 Land Use 10 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue renewed Diablo Canyon operating 11 licenses, and reactor power generating operations would cease on or before the expiration of 12 the current licenses. However, plant maintenance and decommissioning activities would 13 continue. Under this alternative, onsite land use would remain similar to onsite land use under 14 the proposed action until decommissioning. Shutdown of Diablo Canyon would not affect onsite 15 land use. Plant structures and other facilities would remain in place until decommissioning.
Most 16 transmission lines and ROWs would remain in service after the cessation of reactor operations.
17 Maintenance of most existing infrastructure would continue. Based on this information, the NRC 18 staff concludes that land use impacts under the no-action alternative would be SMALL.
19 3.2.4.2 Visual Resources 20 Termination of reactor operations because of not renewing the operating licenses under the 21 no-action alternative would not immediately change the visual appearance of the Diablo Canyon 22
site. The most visible structures are the reactor containment and other buildings, and they would 23 likely remain in place for some time during decommissioning until they are eventually 24 dismantled. As a result, the NRC staff concludes that visual resources impacts from the 25 no-action alternative would be SMALL.
LARGE impact as closing down the reactor will start the process of radioactive decay.
STOP making more curies.
New and significant information:
Page 3-11 3.3 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise 1
3.3.1 Meteorology and Climatology San Luis Obispo County experiences severe weather events, including tornadoes, hail, and 33 floods. For the January 1950 through January 2024 period of record, the following events were 34 recorded (NOAA 2024-TN10155):
35
- flood: 16 events 36
- hail: 6 events 37
- tornado: 2 events 38 What happened before then? Theodosia The Flower Wizard of California Page 140 Stated in 1870 re Ventura: Excerpt: Just beyond is the Santa Gertrudes Chapel where the padres and Indians retreated after the tidal wave of Theo looked terrified. Probably there will not be another one in our lifetime, so dont worry. Will Shephard The Ventura County topographical map places this area where the padres and Indians retreated as 137 to 159 feet above sea level.
Page 3-14 Table 3-5 Permitted Equipment at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant PTO-546-2 One (1) Gasoline Dispensing Facility The maximum dispensing rate shall be 10 gpm Annual performance test shall be conducted.
Emergency vents shall not leak Tank gauge components shall not leak
Should use alcohol in place of gasoline. This would improve air quality and decrease the carbon footprint.
New and significant information:
Air Quality - Air quality impacts 3.3.5.1 SMALL Page 3-17 Air quality is impacted by radionuclide releases and the benefit to the environment would be LARGE if they were no longer released to the air we breathe. Breast cancer rates would plummet. Maine Yankee released 3,865.16 curies to the air over a five year sample period, mostly Xenon-133. Renewable diesel could be substituted for diesel #2 with air quality benefits.
New and significant information:
Page 3-19 Californias 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018 requires that all energy generation be 3
renewable and zero-carbon after 2045 (State of California 2018-TN9855).
ZERO CARBON MEANS NO RADIOACTIVE CARBON-14. GOODBYE TO THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA. This statement should read all energy generation be renewable, zero carbon and non-radioactive Pages 3-22 to 3-23 3.4 Geologic Environment 3.4.1 Regional Geology and Physiography Ridge crest altitudes 31 range from about 800 to 1,800 ft (244 to 549 m). Most mountain slopes are relatively steep and 32 have been modified by extensive landslides (PG&E 2023-TN9822) 33 The terraces reflect tectonic uplift in the region.
40 The San Luis Bay fault zone is a 38 steeply north-dipping reverse fault, which is a type of fault in which rock units above the fault 39 surface (i.e., the hanging wall of the fault) moves upward relative to the rock units below the 40 fault surface (i.e.,the footwall of the fault).
Admits to earthquakes.
New and significant information:
Page 3-26 3.4.4 Soils Regarding prime farmland and soils, the U.S. Department of Agricultures Natural Resources 27 Conservation Service maps show that approximately 2.1 percent of the site is considered prime 28 farmland, if irrigated.
NOT prime farmland. Its radioactive. Also because of the radioactive fog, everything one mile inland is radioactive. Refer to the studies conducted on the coast of England.
Thats the cover-up in Ukraine. The Bread Basket of the World The nuke Industry is allowing radioactive bread from Chernobyls fallout to be sent to Africa to feed innocent, hungry people. There are now kids dying in Africa (The Democratic Republic of the Congo) of mysterious diseases. I wonder if this is related to the radioactive bread they are eating.
3.4 Geologic Environment Page 3-27 The no-action alternative would involve not renewing the existing operating licenses. With the 44 subsequent cessation of operations, there would be little or no additional impact on geology and 45 3-28 soils. Any contamination of onsite geology or soils would be assessed during decommissioning, 1
either at the end of the current licensing period or at the end of the LR period. A license 2
termination plan would describe any necessary actions needed for site-specific clean up before 3
release of the Diablo Canyon site. Consequently, NRC staff concludes that the impact of the 4
no-action alternative on geology and soils would be SMALL.
The benefit to the environment soil would be LARGE. It would make the probability of a meltdown, which would contaminate the soil, decrease.
New and significant information:
Page 3-27 3.4.5 Seismic Setting and History California State Senate Bill 846 was passed in September 2022 to extend the operation of 11
Diablo Canyon and included a covenant for PG&E to perform an updated seismic analysis.
12 PG&E published the results of that analysis on March 6, 2024 (PG&E 2024-TN10192). The 13 results were not discussed in the ER because they had not been publicly released when the ER 14 was submitted to the NRC. The NRC staff independently reviewed pertinent portions of the 15 updated analysis report to determine whether new and significant information was provided 16 therein that might change the ERs description of the affected geologic environment at and 17 adjacent to the Diablo Canyon site. New information was developed on slip rates for the Hosgri 18 fault and certain other faults. At the primary level of interest (i.e., 10-4 to 10-6 annual hazard 19 level), the Hosgri fault was determined to be the largest contributor to seismic hazard followed 20 by the San Luis Bay, Los Osos, and Shoreline fault sources. PG&E noted that the Hosgri fault 21 contributes about 50-70 percent to total hazard at the 10-4 annual hazard level (PG&E 2024-22 TN10192). The new slip rate data notwithstanding, the NRC staff concludes that none of these 23 tectonic structures will have impacts on the geologic environment at or adjacent to the Diablo 24 Canyon site that are different from impacts occurring during the current license term since no 25 new faults were reported based on the updated analysis.
How dare you conclude that there wont be earthquakes that affects Diablo Canyon? Ive felt nothing but earthquakes since Ive moved to California. This is not a place to site a nuke plant, but then again no place is.
On Thursday Dec 5, 2024 there was a 7.0 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Eureka, CA. There was a tsunami alert with the fire department issuing a statement to the public to flee to an area 100 feet above sea level. According to Figure 3-5 the bottom of the turbine is at 40-60 feet, the bottom of the containment building starts at 40, the bottom of the fuel containment is at 50+, and the bottom of the refueling water storage tank is at about 96 feet. So all of these buildings inclusive of the water pumps and the intake and outflow areas would be under water to varying degrees with a 100 foot tsunami (I..e. the bottom 1/3rd of the turbine and fuel handling buildings, and the bottom 1/4th of the containment structure).
New and significant information:
3.4.6 Proposed Action Page 3-27 27 As documented in Table 3-1 for the geology and soils issue, the impact of LR and continued 28 operations for Diablo Canyon on geology and soils would be SMALL. The finding in 10 CFR
29 Part 51 (TN10253), Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 related to geology and soils indicates that 30 this generic Category 1 issue would result in a SMALL impact for all nuclear power plants.
It has a LARGE impact on the land. You forgot to mention all the nuclear waste you send to nuclear dumps in Utah and Texas. What impact does that have on the soil? All nuclear dumps leak. This info should be included in this assessment.
No significant impacts on geology and soils are anticipated during the LR term that would 38 be different from those occurring during the current license term. Thus, the staff concludes that 39 the impacts of LR related to the geology and soils issue would be SMALL for Diablo Canyon.
LARGE. Be responsible for the waste you produce and send to other states. Also it would be a LARGE benefit to the geology and soil to avoid a nuclear accident.
3.4.7 No-Action Alternative Page 3-27 43 The no-action alternative would involve not renewing the existing operating licenses. With the 44 subsequent cessation of operations, there would be little or no additional impact on geology and 45 3-28 soils. Any contamination of onsite geology or soils would be assessed during decommissioning, 1
either at the end of the current licensing period or at the end of the LR period. A license 2
termination plan would describe any necessary actions needed for site-specific clean up before 3
release of the Diablo Canyon site. Consequently, NRC staff concludes that the impact of the 4
no-action alternative on geology and soils would be SMALL.
LARGE benefit if you do not re-license. Let the radioactive decay process begin and dont add any more.
New and significant information:
Pages 3-29 to 3-30 3.5.1.1.1 Local and Regional Hydrology 34 Diablo Canyon is located along the central California Coast in San Luis Obispo County 35 (Figure 3-1). Nearby coastal cities include Avila Beach 8 mi (13 km) to the southeast and the
36 City of San Luis Obispo 12 mi (19 km) to the north. The coastline is characterized by steep and 37 rocky shoreline often exposed to heavy wave action. Long-term sea-level data from 1946 are 38 available from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station in Port San 39 Luis (NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services Station 9412110),
40 3-30 approximately 6 mi (10 km) east-southeast of Diablo Canyon. The NOAA station shows that 1
ocean water levels range from -2.40 ft (-0.7 m) mean lower low water (MLLW) to 2.32 ft (0.71 m) 2 mean higher high water (MHHW) (-5.20 to 4.85 ft MSL [-1.58 to 1.49 m MSL]) (NOAA 2024-3 TN10083). The power block area of Diablo Canyon is sited on a coastal terrace that is 4
approximately 1,000 ft (305 m) wide and whose elevation ranges from 60 to 150 ft MSL (18 to 5
46 m MSL); the plant grade elevation is 85 ft MSL (26 m MSL) (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
On Thursday Dec 5, 2024 there was a 7.0 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Eureka, CA. There was a tsunami alert with the fire department issuing a statement to the public to flee to an area 100 feet above sea level. According to Figure 3-5 the bottom of the turbine is at 40-60 feet, the bottom of the containment building starts at 40, the bottom of the fuel containment is at 50+, and the bottom of the refueling water storage tank is at about 96 feet. So all of these buildings inclusive of the water pumps and the intake and outflow areas would be under water to varying degrees with a 100 foot tsunami (I..e. the bottom 1/3rd of the turbine and fuel handling buildings, and the bottom 1/4th of the containment structure.
3.5 Water Resources Page 3-31 The intake withdraws raw seawater that is routed to heat 19 exchanging steam condensers in the turbine building. Seawater is also sent to a SWRO 20 desalinization treatment system that provides the majority of freshwater for plant primary and 21 secondary systems makeup, fire protection system, and plant domestic water system. The 22 Pacific Ocean is the heat sink for Diablo Canyon. On average, approximately 2.5 billion gallons 23 per day of heated water consisting of circulating water and service water discharges, auxiliary 24 water system discharge, and various plant freshwater waste streams, is discharged into the 25 Diablo Cove (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
So 2.5 billion gallons per day of seawater is being contaminated with radionuclides that will heat the water forever. This is in addition to the temperature rise to cool a 599 degree F core. This is DAMAGE to our water resources.
New and significant information:
Page 3-31 3.5.1.1.2 Flooding PG&Es 37 2016 analysis found that the cumulative effects of a probable maximum storm surge and seiche 38 with wind-wave activity combined with an antecedent 10 percent exceedance high tide yielded 39 wave heights of 41.7 and 9.9 ft MSL (12.7 and 3.0 m MSL) outside and inside the breakwaters, 40 respectively (PG&E 2023-TN10090). The estimated wave heights along the coastline were 43 to 41 75 ft (13 to 23 m) below the power block elevation of 85 ft MSL (26 m MSL). There is no 42 historical record of tsunamis at Diablo Canyon but tsunamis recorded in the region result in 43 water levels comparable to the normal tidal range.
What happened before then? Theodosia The Flower Wizard of California Page 140 Stated in1870 re: Ventura: Excerpt: Just beyond is the Santa Gertrudes Chapel where the padres and Indians retreated after the tidal wave of Theo looked terrified. Probably there will not be another one in our lifetime, so dont worry. Will Shephard Sant Gertrudis Asistencia: Marker in Ventura, CA on North Ventura Avenue, 1/2 mile north of Canada Largo Road. The chapel was located 500 feet north of the present marker at 34 degrees 20.851 N, 119 degrees 17.824 W. North of the present marker is a large mountain where the people must have run to. Built sometime between 1792 and 1809.
The Ventura County topographical map places this area where the padres and Indians retreated as 137 to 159 feet above sea level.
Page 3-32 3.5.1.1.2 Flooding A site-1 specific tsunami evaluation conducted for Diablo Canyon estimated that the maximum tsunami 2
runup elevations at the intake structure are 20 ft MSL (6 m MSL) for distantly generated 3
tsunamis and 9.2 ft MSL (2.8 m MSL) for locally generated tsunamis. The runup elevations for 4
the combined effects of tsunami, wind-generated storm waves, storm surge, and tides are 30 5
and 34.6 ft MSL (9.1 and 10.5 m MSL) for distantly generated and local tsunamis, respectively.
As above.
New and significant information:
Page 3-33 Additionally, the NRC evaluates nuclear power plant operating conditions and physical 13 infrastructure to ensure ongoing safe operations through its Reactor Oversight Process. If new 14 information about changing environmental conditions becomes available, the NRC will evaluate 15 the new information to determine whether any safety-related changes are needed.
16 There may be a tipping point in our future where large melts in the ice occur rapidly as the methane is released and CO2 traps the heat (produced from nuclear power plants) causing rapid sea level rise world-wide.
New and significant information:
Page 3-33 Table 3-7 Surface Water Withdrawals for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from 31 the Pacific Ocean 32 The average annual surface water use between 2018-2023 was 830,397 MGY (million gallons 25 per year) or 2,275 million gallons per day (MGD).
26 Thats 830,397 MGY heated to 22 degrees F to 50 degrees F. Thats why the oceans are warming and dying. Plus its all made radioactive by your leaking nuclear power plants.
Main Yankee dumped 1,823.338 curies into Montsweag Bay over a five year sample period. This was mostly Tritium. I do not have the Diablo Canyon stats so will use Maine Yankee releases as an example. 1,823.388 curies in 5 years time 8 equals 14,587.104 curies for one plant over 40 years of operation. 14,587.104 curies times two nuclear power plants equals 29,174.208 curies dumped into Diablo Cove since 1984. Tritiums hazardous life is 123.2 years to 246.4 years. So all the tritium released from Maine Yankee into Montsweag Bay and the tritium released into Diablo Cove is still around somewhere.
Page 3-33 Page 3-33 3.5.1.2 Surface Water Use 17 Cooling water for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 is withdrawn from the Pacific Ocean using a
18 shoreline intake structure, approximately 240 ft (43 m) long and 104 ft (32 m) wide (PG&E 2023-19 TN9822). The cooling water withdraw rate for Unit 1 is between 778,000 gpm (2,945,050 lpm) 20 and 854,000 gpm (3,232,742 lpm), and for Unit 2 is between 811,000 gpm (3,069,969 lpm) and 21 895,000 gpm (3,387,945 lpm). The two-unit combined withdraw rate is between 1,589,000 gpm 22 (6,015,019 lpm) minimum and 1,749,000 gpm (6,620,685 lpm) maximum during normal plant 23 operations (PG&E 2023-TN9822, Section 2.2.3.3).
24 The average annual surface water use between 2018-2023 was 830,397 MGY (million gallons 25 per year) or 2,275 million gallons per day (MGD). As summarized in Table 3-7, the minimum 26 annual surface withdrawals were 755,762 MGY in 2019 and the maximum surface water 27 withdrawals were 858,120 MGY in 2021. During the 2018-2023 period, the minimum monthly 28 withdrawal was 34,365 million gallons per month (MGM) in 2020 and the maximum monthly 29 withdrawal was 77,066 MGM, which was reported as the maximum for all 6 years.
MGM)
Monthly Minimum (MGM)
Monthly Maximum (MGM)
Yearly Total (MGY) 2018 71,232 47,713 77,066 854,778 2019 62,980 37,170 77,066 755,762 2020 69,545 34,365 77,066 834,539 2021 71,510 54,535 77,066 858,120 2022 69,599 48,276 77,066 835,186 2023 70,333 40,801 77,066 843,998 MGM = million gallon(s) per month; MGY = million gallon(s) per year.
All reported values are rounded.
Sources: PG&E 2023-TN9822 and PG&E 2024-TN10032.
Contamination of our planet. The heating of our planet. Man-made radioactive hot sea water.
Page 3-34 to 3-35 3.5.1.3 Surface Water Quality and Effluents 30 3.5.1.3.1 Water Quality Assessment and Regulation Section 303(d) of the CWA requires States to identify all impaired waters for which effluent 42 limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water quality standards in 43
such waters. Similarly, CWA Section 305(b) requires States to assess and report on the overall 44 quality of waters in their State. States prepare a CWA Section 303(d) list that identifies the water 45 3-35 quality limited stream segments that require the development of total maximum daily loads 1
(TMDLs) to assure future compliance with water quality standards. The list also identifies the 2
pollutant or stressor causing the impairment and establishes a priority for developing a control 3
plan to address the impairment. The TMDLs specify the maximum amount of a pollutant that a 4
water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Once established, TMDLs are 5
often implemented through watershed-based programs administered by the State, primarily 6
through permits issued under the NPDES permit program, pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 7
and associated point and nonpoint source water quality improvement plans and associated 8
BMPs. States are required to update and resubmit their impaired waters list every 2 years, 9
which ensures that impaired waters continue to be monitored and assessed by the State until 10 applicable water quality standards are met.
This list should include radionuclides. All waters are clearly over their curie limit. Many radionuclides take a very long time to decay. The more radionuclides we produce, the more concentrated and radioactive the water is.
11 Near Diablo Canyon, the following impaired waters are listed in the California 17 2020-2022 Integrated Report (PG&E 2023-TN9822):
18
- Pacific Ocean between Point Buchon and Point San Luis for mercury 19
- Pacific Ocean at Estero Bay for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and mercury 20
- Warden Creek for toxicity, nitrate, and dissolved oxygen 21
- Los Osos Creek for dissolved oxygen, nitrate, and sedimentation 22
- San Luis Obispo Creek for benthic macroinvertebrates bioassessments, chloride, sodium, 24 nitrate, toxicity, and E. coli, fecal coliform, and urea 25
- Port San Luis for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, dieldrin, and polychlorinated 26
biphenyls (PCBs).
Page 3-35 3.5.1.3.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting Status and Plant Effluents The Federal NPDES permit program addresses water 31 pollution by regulating point sources (i.e., pipes, ditches) that discharge pollutants to waters of 32 the United States.
Nuclear power plants cannot 35 operate without a valid NPDES permit and a current Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
36 A water quality certification pursuant to Section 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 37 and Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 11 of the California Administrative Code was issued in 38 October 1971 by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board (CCRWQCB) and the 39 California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for Diablo Canyon (PG&E 2023-40 TN9822). PG&E is in active communication with the CCRWQCB regarding the CWA 401 41 certification (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
Page 3-36 Diablo Canyon Units 1 3
and 2 operate under NPDES Permit No. CA0003571 (PG&E 2023-TN9822). The current 4
NPDES permit was issued on May 11, 1990 by the CCRWQCB, and had a listed expiration of 5
July 1, 1995. However, the permit has been under administrative extension and is listed as 6
currently active on the SWRCB database (SWRCB 2024-TN10087). According to PG&E, the 7
NPDES permit is anticipated to be re-issued in late 2026 (PG&E 2023-TN9822) 8 This permit expired July 1, 1995. Has Diablo been paying a fee for this administrative extension? Permits cost money. There should be a fee from July 1, 1995 until late 2026 inclusive of late fees (11 years) if there has not been a payment.
The NPDES permit for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 allows PG&E to discharge via external 11 Outfalls 001 through 017 (Figure 3-3). Cooling water and industrial process wastewater from 12 Diablo Canyon are discharged to the Pacific Ocean in accordance with Diablo Canyon NPDES 13 Permit No. CA0003751, Order No. 90-09 (PG&E 2023-TN9822). The receiving water bodies are 14 the Pacific Ocean and Diablo Creek. The NPDES permit also authorizes 13 additional outfalls
15 that are internal. External Outfalls 004 through 015 are related to stormwater runoff. Outfall 001 16 discharges to Diablo Cove, Outfalls 002 and 004 discharge to Intake Cove, Outfall 003 17 discharges to the Pacific Ocean, Outfalls 005, 006, 016, and 017 discharge to the South Cove, 18 Outfall 007 discharges to the Pacific Ocean, and Outfalls 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, 19 and 015 discharge to Diablo Creek.
However, as stated in Section 3.7.5.2 of this SEIS, in 2021, there was a settlement 22 between PG&E and the CCRWQCB associated with historical and ongoing thermal discharge 23 impacts from Diablo Canyon cooling water discharge. The settlement, associated with Case No.
24 21CV-0111, was reached in May 2021 in the California Superior Court, County of San Luis 25 Obispo. PG&E made a one-time payment to the Bay Foundation of Morro Bay to benefit water 26 quality and the environment on Californias Central Coast. The Consent Judgement did not 27 specifically conclude if PG&E violated its NPDES permit.
Does the Bay Foundation of Morro Bay understand they just dredged Intake Cove and placed that sediment and kelp, with its assorted radionuclides and other chemical effluents from Outfall 002, Outfall 003, Outfall 004, Outfall 016, and Outfall 017 south of Morro Bay and west of Morro Bay State Park?
Outfall 001: The NPDES permit specifies that the discharge rate at Outfall 001, which includes 29 once-through cooling water discharge, must not exceed 2,760 MGD. The permit also lists 30 instantaneous maximum, daily maximum, and 6-month median concentration limits for the 31 following constituents: arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, 32 silver, zinc, cyanide, total residual chlorine, ammonia, toxicity, non-chlorinated phenolic 33 compounds, chlorinated phenolics, and radioactivity. Daily average discharge temperatures are 34 limited to no more than 22°F (12.2°C) above the daily average intake water temperature, except 35 during heat treatment for demusseling, when the daily average discharge temperature is limited 36 to no more than 25°F (13.8°C) above the daily average intake water temperature. In addition to 37 the once-through cooling water, service cooling water and in-plant waste streams are also 38 discharged through Outfall 001 and are labeled Discharge 001A, 001B, 001D through 001N, 39
and 001P. Discharges 001D, 001F through 001M, and 001P have specified concentration limits 40 for suspended solids and oil and grease. When metal cleaning operations occur, discharges 41 001D, 001F, 001L, and 001M have specified concentration limits for total copper and total iron.
42 Discharge 001N has specified concentration limits for suspended solids, settleable solids, and 43 oil and grease.
An example of radionuclides dumped into Outfall 1, Diablo Cove (five year reported sample): I do not have Diablo Canyon stats so will use Maine Yankees. You need to double the totals as Diablo Canyon has TWO nuclear power plants).
Radionuclides dumped into the water by Maine Yankee (excludes high-level waste);
1986 releases into the water: SR-89 0.000073 curies, SR-90 0.000133 curies, CS-134 0.0000333 curies, CS-137 0.00176 curies, I-131 0.229 curies, Co-58 0.000007 curies, Co-60 0.0136 curies, Cr-51 0.000041 curies, Mo-49 0.00111 curies, Tc-99 0.000895 curies, I-133 0.0218 curies, Cs-136 0.000153 curies, Fe-55 0.0223 curies, Ag-110m 0.00104 curies, Nb-97 0.00288 curies, SB-124 0.000153 curies, Sb-125 0.00262 curies, I-135 0.000976 curies, entrained gases: Xe-133 1.14 curies, Xe-135 0.261 curies, Xe-133m 0.00817, Xe-131m 0.00323 curies, Xe-135m 0.00123 curies, Kr-85 0.000086 curies, Tritium (H-3): 349 curies Total Activity released to water: 350.7 curies 1987 releases into water: nuclides: Sr-89 0.00299 curies, Sr-90 0.00327 curies, Cs-134 0.00922 curies, Cs-137 0.0388 curies, I-131 0.0859 curies, Co-58 0.148 curies, Co-60 0.163 curies, Mn-54 0.00344 curies, Cr-51 0.0134 curies, Zr-Nb95 0.00366 curies, Mo-99 0.00035 curies, Tr-99m 0.00043 curies, Ba/La-140 0.0057 curies, Ce-141 0.00045 curies, Fe-55 0.251 curies, Ag 110m 0.0228 curies, co-57 0.000288 curies, Sb-122 0.000076 curies, Xe-131m 0.0136 curies, Sb-124 0.0874 curies, Sb-125 0.0324 curies, I132 0.000021 curies, I-133 0.00371 curies, I-135 0.000197 curies, Sn-133 0.000378 curies, Xe-133 0.015 curies, Ru-103 0.00179 curies, Ce-139 0.000035 curies, Np-239 0.00004 curies, Sr-91 0.00008 curies, Y-91m 0.00009 curies, Y-92 0.000107 curies, entrained gases: Kr-85 0.00013 curies, Xe-133 1.47 curies, Xe-135 0.00787 curies, Xe135m 0.00005 curies, Tritium (H-3) 117.71 curies Total Activity released to water: 120.095672 curies 1988 (Im unable to locate this report) 1989 releases into water: nuclides: Antimony-124 0.0344 curies, Antimony-125 0.0249 curies, Barium/La-140 0.000826 curies, Cerium-144 0.00000676 curies, Cesium-134 0.00396 curies, Cesium-137 0.0160 curies, Chromium-51 0.00076 curies, Cobalt-57 0.0000425 curies, cobalt-58 0.0266 curies, cobalt-60 0.0347 curies, Iodine-131 0.005 curies, iodine-133 0.00115 curies, Iodine-135 0.0000221 curies, Iron-55 0.0218 curies, Manganese-54 0.00185 curies, Molybdenum-99 0.000169 curies, Ruthenium-103 0.000000932 curies, Silver-110m 0.00769 curies, Strontium-89 0.000708 curies, Strontium-91 0.0000513 curies, Technetium-99m 0.000415 curies, Tellurium-132 0.000000729 curies, Tellurium-133m 0.00000809 curies, Tin-113 0.0000988 curies, Yttrium-91m 0.0000578 curies, Zinc-65 0.0000000939 curies, Zirconium/Nb-95 0.0000487 curies, Barium-139 0.0000487 curies, Ianthium-142 0.00000177 curies, Tellurium-134 0.00174 curies, entrained gases: Xenon-133 0.189 curies, Xenon-135 0.00169 curies, Xenon-131m 0.000627 curies, Xenon-133m 0.00223 curies, Krypton-87 0.0000104 curies, Krypton-85m 0.00000211 curies, Krypton-88 0.00000166 curies, Tritium (H-3) 422 curies
Total Activity released to water: 422.376 curies 1990 releases into water: nuclides: Antimony-122 0.000374 curies, Antimony-124 0.0442 curies, Antimony-125 0.0257 curies, Barium/Lanth-140 0.000659 curies, Cerium-141 0.0000552 curies, Cerium-144 0.000000246 curies, Cesium-134 0.00203 curies, Cesium-137 0.0163 curies, Chromium-51 0.00479 curies, Cobalt-57 0.0000328 curies, Cobalt-58 0.0223 curies, Cobalt -60 0.0121 curies, Iodine-131 0.0279 curies, Iodine-132 0.0000165 curies, Iodine-133 0.00199 curies, Iron-55 0.0197 curies, Manganese-54 0.000181 curies, Mercury-203 0.0000911 curies, Ruthenium -103 0.000000944 curies, Silver-110m 0.00448 curies, Strontium-89 0.00194 curies, Technetium-99m 0.00123 curies, Tin-113 0.0000271 curies, Zinc-65 0.00000266 curies, Zirconium/Nb-95 0.00032 curies, Lanthium-142 0.000000231 curies, Tellurium-131 0.000000917 curies, Cadmium-109 0.00025 curies, (Unidentified) 0.0000258 curies. Entrained gases: Xenon-133 4.5 curies, Xenon-135 0.00474 curies, Xenon-131m 0.0914 curies, Xenon-133m 0.0208 curies, Xenon-135m 0.0000867 curies, Krypton-87 0.0000258 curies, Krypton-85m 0.00018 curies, Krypton-88 0.000099 curies, Krypton-85 0.0071 curies, Tritium (H3): 243 curies Total activity released to water: 248 curies 1991 releases into water: nuclides: SR-89 0.004154 curies, CS-134 0.00213 curies, Cs-137 0.0139 curies, I-131 0.243 curiesCO-58 0.0169 curies, Co-60 0.026 curies, Fe-59 0.000095 curies, Mn-54 0.000135 curies, Cr-51 0.00327 curies, Zr/Nb-95 0.000232 curies, Mo-99 0.000215 curies, Tc-99m 0.000634 curies, Ba/La-140 0.0012 curies, Ce-141 0.0000815 curies, Fe-55 0.0161 curies, SB-124. 0.0386 Curies, Sb-125 0.041 curies, Ag-110m 0.00214 curies, Ru-103 0.0000464 curies, Sn-113 0.000178 curies, Np-239 0.000190 curies, Sr-85 0.000332 curies, I-133 0.00184 curies, Ba-133 0.0000407 curies, I-135 0.000246 curies, Sb-122 0.0000553 curies, Te-132 0.000012 curies, Ce-144 0.0000136 curies, Co-57 0.00000937 curies, Na-24 0.00000459 curies, La-141 0.0000967 curies, Entrained gases: Xe-133 1.986 curies, Xe-135 0.00367 curies, Xe-131m 0.0516 curies, Xe-133m 0.0083 curies, Xe-135m 0.00013 curies, Kr-85m 0.000298 curies, Tritium (H3): 388.8 curies Total activity released to water: 390.892 curies Outfalls 002 through 005, 008, 009, and 013 through 017: The NPDES permit requires that the 45 discharged effluent must not violate the water quality objectives in Chapter II, General 46 Requirements in Chapter III, and Table B Toxic Materials Limitations in Chapter IV of the Water 47 Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California, California Ocean Plan.
Page 3-37 Outfalls 003, 004, 005, 008, 009, 013, 015, 016, and 017: The NPDES permit specifies 4
concentration limits on oil and grease.
Chemical additives: chlorination, Liquid sodium hypochlorite and a 12 supplemental chemical, sodium bromide.
Intake Cove is inclusive of Outfall 002, Outfall 003 (close), Outfall 004, Outfall 016, and Outfall 017. Not sure what ALL is dumped through Outfall 002, Outfall 003 and Outfall 004 but it looks like oil and grease. Chemical additives: chlorination, liquid sodium
hypochlorite and a supplemental chemical, sodium bromide are also dumped through Outfall 003 (close enough that it may have been included in the dredging) and Outfall 004 as well as through Outfall 016 and Outfall 017.
Page 3-38 Other Surface Water Resources Permits and Approvals If 27 retention basins are full, excess stormwater runoff discharges to either Diablo Creek or the 28 Pacific Ocean at outfalls located at Intake Cove.
29 Stormwater 36 Constituents include total suspended solids, oil and 37 grease, metals, tritium, gamma emitters, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, 38 temperature, turbidity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity. Discharge of oil.
So the stormwater also is discharged into Intake Cove which includes total suspended solids, oil and grease, metals, tritium, gamma emitters, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, temperature, turbidity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity. Discharge of oil.
Page 3-38 The north 5
and south control points are located beyond the zone of influence of the plant thermal 6
discharge.
7 The zone of influence is world-wide. They are heating up the whole ocean.
The chlorination system provides chemical treatment of the 10 circulating water to control the macro and micro fouling in the intake tunnels, piping, and 11 condenser tubes. The system is used as needed. Liquid sodium hypochlorite and a 12 supplemental chemical, sodium bromide, are stored in tanks at the intake structure. When 13 chlorination is required (based on a time schedule), the chemicals are injected via metering 14 pumps into the seawater CWP forebays within the intake structure The bleaching of our coral reefs along with heat.
New and significant information:
Page 3-39 A bathymetric survey conducted in 2020 revealed sand accumulation and extensive kelp growth 12 in Intake Cove. PG&E decided to remove the accumulated sand and kelp by dredging Intake 13 Cove, which had not been performed since the initial construction of the breakwater. The 14 California Coastal Commission approved issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for the 15 Diablo Canyon Intake Cove Dredging Project on March 14, 2024, which fulfills the CZMA 16 certification requirement for the project. PG&E was authorized to dredge up to 70,000 cubic 17 yards (53,519 cubic m [m3]) of accumulated sand and sediment from within a 125,000 square 18 foot (ft2) (11,613 square meter [m2]) dredge footprint at the north end of Intake Cove to a depth 19 of -38 ft mean lower low water. Dredging of Intake Cove was conducted from June 25, 2024, 20 through July 7, 2024 under Diablo Canyon Intake Cover Dredging Permit Number SPL-2023-21 00468 (PG&E 2024-TN10032) (PG&E 2024-TN10226). Approximately 26,000 cubic yards of 22 material was removed from the cove and placed at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 23 Nearshore Placement Area located south of the entrance to Morrow Bay and west of Morrow 24 Bay State Park (PG&E 2024-TN10226). Dredging activities were monitored by the National 25 Marine Fisheries Service and PG&E will continue required post-dredging monitoring (e.g.,
26 annual eelgrass monitoring for 3 years) and reporting (PG&E 2024-TN10226).
27 As established above, Intake Cove has accumulated oil and grease, chemical additives:
chlorination, liquid sodium hypochlorite and a supplemental chemical, sodium bromide, total suspended solids, metals, tritium, gamma emitters, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, temperature, turbidity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity.
The dredge footprint at the north end of Intake Cove. North of Intake Cove is the out flow area that is full of radionuclides. There has to be some pulling in/ recirculation of the Diablo Cove radionuclides back in to Intake Cove since the initial construction of the breakwater.
NRCs definition of north of Intake Cove from page 3-88 of this EIS:
Diablo Cove: Diablo Cove lies to the north of Intake Cove. This cove receives Diablo Canyons thermal effluent discharge of Pacific Ocean water that the plant withdraws from Intake Cove for cooling purposes.
From Page 3-88 Pacific Ocean: Based on NPDES plume surveys from 1986 to 1990 (PG&E 2008-TN10104), Diablo Canyons thermal plume is primarily detectable between 0.5 and 1 mi (0.8 and 1.6 km) offshore (41 to 60 percent of survey samples) with a maximum extent of 2 mi (3.2 km) either north or south of Diablo Cove during certain tidal conditions.
The above should really read Diablo Canyons RADIOACTIVE thermal plume So this proves the radionuclides travel south of Diablo Cove during certain tidal conditions. South of Diablo Cove is Intake Cove.
PG&E decided to remove the accumulated sand and kelp by dredging Intake Cove, which had not been performed since the initial construction of the breakwater.
2.1.2 Nuclear Reactor Systems The Diablo Canyon Unit 1 operating license was issued on November 2, 1984, and the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 operating license was issued on August 26, 1985.
So this dredging covers TWO nuclear power plants over a 40 year period. Thats a lot of radionuclides! Thats also a lot of oil and grease, chemical additives: chlorination, liquid sodium hypochlorite and a supplemental chemical, sodium bromide, total suspended solids, metals, tritium, gamma emitters, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, temperature, turbidity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity.
Approximately 26,000 cubic yards of material was removed from the cove and placed at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nearshore Placement Area located south of the entrance to Morrow Bay and west of Morrow Bay State Park (PG&E 2024-TN10226).
The Bay Foundation of Morro Bay (and the rest of Southern California) should sue for the health consequences that are ongoing since 2024 (really since 1984). Is the Bay Foundation aware that this sediment, sand and kelp is radioactive and full of 40 years worth of contaminants? Tritiums hazardous life is 123.2 years to 246.4 years. Are they not able to sue because it was placed on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nearshore Placement area?
New and significant information:
Page 3-39 Under the Diablo Canyon Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), surface 28 water samples include monthly sampling at three coastal Pacific Ocean locations (Diablo Cove, 29 Rattlesnake Canyon, and the plant outfall) and five freshwater surface water locations (Diablo 30
Creek weir, Diablo Creek outlet, Blanchard Spring, the plant drinking water system, and the City 31 of San Luis Obispo drinking water). The ocean and freshwater samples are analyzed for gamma 32 emitters, gross beta, tritium, total strontium-89/90, iron-55, and nickel-63 (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
33 Over the period from 2018 to 2021, no Diablo Canyon-related radionuclides were detected at 34 any of the sample locations (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
35 1,823.338 curies of radioactivity were dumped into Montsweag Bay by Maine Yankee over a 5 year sample time-frame. So if you take that number (I have not to date been able to get hold of the Diablo Canyon LLRW Annual Reports so I will use the Maine Yankee data),
1,823.338 curies times 8 (i.e. 5 years X 8=40 years) and then multiply by two for two reactors, you get 29,173.408 curies that Diablo Canyon Unit I and 2 has potentially dumped into the Diablo Cove.
Over the period from 2018 to 2021, no Diablo Canyon-related radionuclides were detected at any of the sample locations (PG&E 2023-TN9822)
WHERE DID THEY ALL GO?
You need to take samples at Morro Bay where you dumped all that radioactive sand, sediment and kelp in 2024. If the radionuclides were not detected at the surface sample locations, then you need to test elsewhere. They were definitely released into the water.
Radionuclides with hundreds of years of hazardous lives dont just disappear (Tritium:
123 to 246 years, Strontium-90: 288 to 576 years, Ni-63: 200-400 years). Did you check the nearby aquatic life? Did you check the aquatic life that swims? You are clearly testing in the wrong area. Oh yes, dispersion/dilution is your solution to radioactive pollution. And testing in surface waters only is part of your cover-up. Radioactive heavy metals dont float in surface water. Radioactive heavy metals SINK.
New and significant information:
3-43 1
Figure 3-5 Cross-Section View Showing Potential Groundwater Flow Paths in the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 2
Power Block Area. Source: PG&E 2024-TN10032: Attachment 14.
It looks like the rocks slope back toward land. On Thursday Dec 5, 2024 there was a 7.0 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Eureka, CA. There was a tsunami alert with the fire department issuing a statement to the public to flee to an area 100 feet above sea level. According to Figure 3-5 the bottom of the turbine is at 40-60 feet, the bottom of the containment building starts at 40, the bottom of the fuel containment is at 50+, and the bottom of the refueling water storage tank is at about 96 feet. So all of these buildings inclusive of the water pumps and the intake and outflow areas would be under water to
varying degrees with a 100 foot tsunami (I..e. the bottom 1/3rd of the turbine and fuel handling buildings, and the bottom 1/4th of the containment structure.
Page 3-44 3.5.2.2 Local and Regional Water Consumption Two public water supplies using groundwater were identified within 26 10 mi (16 km) of the Diablo Canyon site, the County of Avila Beach Water District serving Avila 27 Beach and the San Miguelito Mutual Water District serving most of the Avila Valley area (PG&E 28 2023-TN9822). Avila Beach is about 7 mi (11 km) from Diablo Canyon and outside the Diablo 29 Canyon watershed.
Radioactive gaseous releases fall to the ground and affect groundwater supplies. From Page 3-45: Tritium subsequently detected in water from these wells was 25 attributed to rain washout of gaseous tritium released from the permitted plant vent discharges 26 (PG&E 2023-TN9822). The wind flow pattern is predominantly to the south. That could affect the Avila Beach water supply and other locations.
When the Fukushima cores melted, one way the contents were released to the environment was through the caulking around the electrical pipes. The caulk was not designed to withstand the core melting temperatures. Think Prevention Please. Close down Diablo.
Page 3-44 3.5.2.3 Groundwater Quality 37 Groundwater quality in San Luis Obispo County is generally good as evidenced by its 38 widespread use for irrigation, public supply, industrial, and domestic purposes. As stated
- above, 39 Diablo Canyon site groundwater is hydrologically isolated from the principal groundwater basins 40 in the county. Groundwater quality was reported in 2008 for samples obtained from Diablo 41 Canyon wells WW2, WW4, and WW5 (ENTRIX 2008-TN10137). Water samples were of the 42 bicarbonate type with no dominant cation. Sample pH was neutral (6.6-7.3). Specific 43 conductance (1200-1610 µS/cm) was typical of a hard groundwater. Nitrate and inorganic 44 chemical concentrations were low. Analysis of radiological constituents was not reported.
45 Why not? That is what everyone should be looking for. These are Nuclear plants that produce radiation.
Page 3-45 The French drain system wells were monitored as preferential migration pathways for spills or 24 leaks to reach groundwater. Tritium subsequently detected in water from these wells was 25 attributed to rain washout of gaseous tritium released from the permitted plant vent discharges 26 (PG&E 2023-TN9822). DY1 was removed from the offsite-dose calculation manual in 2019 due 27 to the tritium from rain washout, and this well is no longer monitored as part of the GPP (PG&E 28 2023-TN9822). As illustrated in Figure 3-5, vertical migration from inadvertent leaks and/or spills 29 within the power block is possible through potential pathways at sumps, floor drains, 30 underground pipes, or seismic gaps between buildings (PG&E 2024-TN10032). Wells GW1 and 31 GW2, with screens extending into site groundwater, were added to the GPP monitoring program 32 in 2011 to provide detection of potential releases at the perimeter of the site (PG&E 2023-33 TN9822). The current GPP monitoring program collects quarterly samples at wells WW2, OW1, 34 OW2, GW1, GW2, and 8S3 and analyzes for tritium, gamma emitters, gross beta, 35 strontium-89/90, iron-55, and nickel-63 (PG&E 2023-TN9822). In addition, samples are 36 collected from two locations in Diablo Creek and from a spring at the nearest residence, about 37 1.5 mi (2.4 km) from the site (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
Tritium subsequently detected in water from these wells was attributed to rain washout of gaseous tritium released from the permitted plant vent discharges (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
The tritium could be from the core, a leak in the pipes. Tritium is the main radionuclide you are dumping in the ocean. Keep monitoring the French drain system.
Page 3-46 The review also concluded that any release from Diablo Canyon would travel 3
in groundwater and discharge to Diablo Cove, where it would be diluted to background levels by 4
mixing with seawater (PG&E 2024-TN10032).
Dilution is the solution. The nuclear industry keeps adding radionuclides so background levels are constantly rising. Another loophole that allows you to contaminate the water.
We should use background to mean BEFORE nuclear bombs were invented. And, once again, the ocean is not only your heat sink but also your nuclear dump.
Page 3-46 Radiological Releases 6
No release of tritium to groundwater has been reported for Diablo Canyon (NRC 2023-TN9980).
7 Just because you dont report it doesnt mean its not happening. You just said you stopped monitoring the French drain system. So how would you know? There was tritium in the French drain system and you hypothesized that it was a gaseous leak from venting. So tritium is falling all around the USA on us when it rains. Its definitely in the fog. And as nuclear plants age, they release more radionuclides, not less, so this is not the time to be cutting back on monitoring radionuclides.
3.5.3.2 Groundwater Resources 36 As documented in the LR GEIS (NRC 2024-TN10161) and cited in Table 3-1, for generic 37 groundwater resources issues, the impacts of nuclear power plant LR and continued operations 38 would be SMALL for the Category 1 issues applicable to Diablo Canyon.
The impacts of nuclear power plant LR and continued operations would be LARGE.
New and significant information:
Pages 3-47 to 3-48 Radionuclides Released to Groundwater 25 The issue of radionuclides released to groundwater was added for consideration as part of the 26 groundwater review for LR in the 2024 LR GEIS revision (NRC 2024-TN10161) because of the 27 accidental releases of liquids containing radioactive material into the groundwater at power 28 reactor sites (NRC 2023-TN9980). Most of the inadvertent releases that have occurred at 29 operating plants involved leaks of water containing tritium or other radioactive isotopes from 30 spent fuel pools, buried piping, or failed valves on effluent discharge lines. In 2006, the NRC 31 released a report titled, Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Report, 32 documenting lessons learned from a review of these incidents that ultimately concluded that 33 these instances had not adversely affected public health and safety (NRC 2006-TN1000). This 34 report concluded, in general, that groundwater affected by radionuclide releases is expected to
35 remain onsite, but that instances of offsite migration have occurred. Therefore, the 2024 36 LR GEIS (NRC 2024-TN10161) determined that impacts on groundwater quality from the 37 release of radionuclides could be SMALL or MODERATE, depending on the magnitude of the 38 leak, the radionuclides involved, hydrogeologic factors, distance to receptors, and the response 39 time of plant personnel to identify and stop the leak. Consistent with the 2024 LR GEIS, this is a
40 Category 2 issue requiring a site-specific evaluation and that evaluation with respect to Diablo 41 Canyon LR is provided below.
42 The issue of radionuclides released to groundwater was discussed and evaluated in Sections 43 3.6.4.2 and 4.5.5 of the ER (PG&E 2023-TN9822). PG&E monitors groundwater at Diablo 44 Canyon for inadvertent release as part of its groundwater protection program, which was 45 3-48 implemented in 2006 to conform to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 07-07 (NEI 2019-TN6775) 1 and to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1501 (TN283). Section 3.6.4.2 of the ER (PG&E 2
2023-TN9822) describes the detection of low levels of tritium in samples from the plants French 3
drain system. Based on its review of the available information, the NRC staff concludes that low 4
levels of tritium present in samples from the French drain system are not indicative of 5
inadvertent releases from the plant but likely result from rain washout of tritium deposited from 6
regulated releases of gaseous effluents. Section 3.6.4.2 of the ER also describes the detection 7
of low levels of tritium in water samples from the vault sumps of the Old Steam Generator 8
Storage Facility. These releases are also attributed to rain washout. The NRC staff concludes 9
that these sample results do not indicate an inadvertent release of radionuclides to 10 groundwater.
I beg to differ. I think the tritium found in the sump pumps of the Old Steam Generator shows you have a leak in the pipes. Did you bother to test for other radionuclides? What about the French drain system? likely result from rain washout? You are guessing, hypothesizing. Did you test for I-131 or NI-63 or CS-137 or FE-55 or CO-60 to rule out a
leaking core? The older the plants, the more they leak. So if you didnt test to distinguish between gaseous effluents vs water radionuclides leaking from the pipes, then that means you are not reporting accurately. You have brushed aside the idea that the pipes may be leaking and just allowing all those radionuclides to drain into the ocean. Thus your annual low-level radioactive waste reports will not include all the extra radionuclides leaking from the pipes and they will be inaccurate. Further testing is needed.
Based on the information reviewed by the NRC staff, the French drain system wells are located 12 above the power block groundwater level. As a result, these wells provide some monitoring of 13 potential preferential migration pathways but do not provide consistent data on groundwater 14 quality beneath the power block. The current site conceptual model, prepared for the GPP, 15 describes the installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells to improve early detection 16 of inadvertent releases (PG&E 2024-TN10032). However, these additional wells have not been 17 installed.
So you didnt bother to install the wells as recommended.
There is no evidence of any release of radionuclides to groundwater 21 based on GW1 and GW2 monitoring (PG&E 2023-TN9822). In addition, no significant historical 22 release of radionuclides to groundwater at Diablo Canyon has been reported (NRC 2023-23 TN9980).
If you dont report it, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
New and significant information:
Based on the information reviewed, the NRC staff determined that the groundwater monitoring 25 at Diablo Canyon could be improved to provide earlier detection of inadvertent releases of 26 radionuclides to groundwater. However, there is no evidence that any significant releases have 27 occurred during the operations history of the plant. Moreover, any inadvertent release to 28 groundwater that reaches the site perimeter would be discharged to Diablo Cove, where it 29 would be mixed and diluted by the plant discharge and the ocean water in the cove. Therefore, 30 the NRC staff concludes that groundwater resources impacts due to the release of radionuclides 31 to groundwater would be SMALL during the Diablo Canyon LR term.
I disagree. Nuclear power creates man-made radionuclides that did not exist before the making of the atomic bomb. Nuclear power has done nothing but contaminate our groundwater (nuclear dump failures), our land, our air and our oceans. LARGE. You did not take into account the Low-Level radioactive waste you send to leaky dumps in Utah and Texas. The Diablo Canyon extension will affect groundwater sites other than the land it sits on. Also its NOT OK that the EXTRA contaminated groundwater will just run into Diablo Cove. Its NOT OK if the pipes are leaking radionuclides from the core and you are not investigating or fixing the problem. Its NOT OK that you are using Diablo Cove as your nuclear dump.
Pages 3-48 to 3-49 3.5.4 No-Action Alternative LARGE. It allows the radioactive decay process to start and no further added curies is a good thing.
Pages 3-61 to 3-633.6.5 No-Action Alternative 43 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue renewed licenses, and Diablo Canyon 44 would shut down on or before the expiration of the current facility operating licenses. Much of 45 3-62 the operational noise and human activity at Diablo Canyon would cease, thereby reducing 1
disturbance to wildlife in forest cover, grasslands, wetlands, and other natural vegetation on and 2
near the site. However, some continued maintenance of Diablo Canyon would still be 3
necessary; thus, at least some human activity, noise, and herbicide application would continue 4
at the site with possible impacts resembling, but perhaps of a lower magnitude than, those 5
described for the proposed action. Shutdown itself is unlikely to noticeably alter terrestrial 6
resources. Reduced human activity and frequency of operational noise may constitute minor 7
beneficial effects on wildlife inhabiting nearby natural habitats. Therefore, the NRC staff 8
concludes that the impacts of the no-action alternative on terrestrial resources during the 9
proposed LR term would be SMALL.
LARGE. Stops the radioactive releases into air, water and land. Allows for hazardous life cycles to begin without adding more nuclides.
Page 3-56 3.6.3.2 State-Listed Species
1 PG&E (PG&E 2023-TN9822: Table 3.7-7) provided a list of species known to occur within 2
San Luis Obispo County that are designated as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and 3
Wildlife Service (FWS) or by the State of California. PG&E evaluated the 13 species that are 4
State listed but not federally listed separately in its ER (PG&E 2023-TN9822: Section 3.7.8.2).
5 Species rankings, life history, and habitat descriptions of these State-listed species (Table 3-9) 6 are incorporated here by reference. Based on the results of the terrestrial biological resources 7
assessment (Terra Verde 2020-TN10098), the NRC staff does not expect these species to 8
occur onsite.
Why do you not expect the endangered or threatened species to occur onsite? How very convenient to just dismiss this list.
Page 3-57 In addition to listing wildlife as threatened or endangered, California has additional listings for 19 wildlife with conservation concerns. The terrestrial biological resource assessment (Terra Verde 20 2020-TN10098: Appendix 1) found that the Diablo Canyon site has potential habitat for 21 22 terrestrial wildlife species (7 mammals, 1 amphibian, 4 reptiles, 1 insect, and 9 birds) that are 22 not listed as endangered or threatened by FWS or by the State of California but are animals 23 with conservation concerns tracked by the State of California (CNDDB 2024-TN10102).
Species 24 rankings, life history, and habitat descriptions of these wildlife species are incorporated here by 25 reference.
26 Mammals tracked by the State of California that may have habitat within the Diablo Canyon site 27 are mountain lion, American badger, San Diego desert woodrat, and four species of bats: pallid 28 bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsends big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), Western mastiff 29 bat (Eumops perotis), and big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis). Mountain lions use nearly 30 all California habitats, from low to high elevations. American badgers are known to occur 31 immediately north of the Diablo Canyon site and use open grasslands as habitat. Woodrats use 32
woodland, mixed chaparral, and desert habitats. Biologists found woodrat middens on the 33 Diablo Canyon site but were not able to determine which species of woodrats created them.
34 Suitable bat roosting habitats and structures may be present on the Diablo Canyon site. None 35 were found during 2020 surveys (Terra Verde 2020-TN10098).
36 Southwestern pond turtles (Actinemys pallida), California newts (Taricha torosa), and 37 two-striped garter snakes (Thamnophis hammondii) may use wetland and riparian habitats on 38 the Diablo Canyon site. None were found during 2020 surveys (Terra Verde 2020-TN10098).
39 The Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), Blainvilles horned lizard 40 (Phrynosoma blainvillii), and obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus) use scrub, chapparal, 41 or woodland habitats. None were found during 2020 surveys (Terra Verde 2020-TN10098).
None were found during 2020 surveys is repeated in the above synopsis. Had they been found during earlier surveys? Surely they were there before Diablo was built. Are they all dead? Mutated? Have cancer or other diseases?
Page 3-57 Biologists found woodrat middens on the 33 Diablo Canyon site but were not able to determine which species of woodrats created them.
34 Was this because of mutations?
New and significant information:
Pages 3-58 to 3-59 3.6.3.4 Species Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 19 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, 20 export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale any migratory bird or the parts, nests, or 21 eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued under Federal regulations.
22 Of the 487 bird species known to occur in San Luis Obispo County (eBird 2024-TN10103), 463 23 are protected by the MBTA. The known range of several federally listed migratory birds overlaps 24 the Diablo Canyon site (Section 3.8 of this SEIS). Of the species known from San Luis Obispo 25 County, 52 warrant additional concern in the project vicinity (PG&E 2023-TN9822: Table 3.7-8):
26 eagles, species that interact with eagles, species that are of special concern for certain offshore 27 activities, or are listed as Birds of Conservation Concern (FWS 2021-TN8740). Of these 28 species, 19 are identified as possibly occurring at the Diablo Canyon site by the FWS (FWS 29 2024-TN10254): black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani), black turnstone (Arenaria 30 melanocephala), Brandts cormorant (Urile pencillatus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis),
31 California gull (Larus californicus), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), common murre 32 (Uria aalge), common yellowthroat (Geothylpis trichas sinuosa), double-crested cormorant 33 (Phalacrocorax auritus), elegant tern (Thalasseus elegans), Heermans gull (Larus heermani),
34 marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), Nutalls woodpecker (Dryobates nutallii), oak titmouse 35 (Baeolophus inornatus), Santa Barbara song sparrow (Melospiza melodia graminea), surf scoter 36 (Melanitta perspicillata), western gull (Larus occidentalis), willet (Tringa semipalmata), and 37 wrentit (Chamaea fasciata).
38 The bluffs and offshore rocks at the Diablo Canyon site provide nesting and roosting habitats for 39 a variety of migratory birds (PG&E 2023-TN9822: Section 3.7.2.5): brown pelican, pelagic 40 cormorants (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), Brandts cormorants, black oystercatchers, western gulls 41 (Larus occidentalis), cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), and peregrine falcons 42 (Falco peregrinus). A large colony of Brandts cormorants roosts and nests on an offshore rock 43 adjacent to the eastern breakwater.
44 3-59 The terrestrial biological resource assessment (Terra Verde 2020-TN10098: Appendix 1) noted 1
that the following migratory birds tracked by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2
(CDFW) (CNDDB 2024-TN10102) also have habitat within the Diablo Canyon site: Coopers 3
hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), western burrowing owl 4
(Athene cunicularia), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), California horned lark (Eremophila 5
alpestris actia), peregrine falcon, and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
6 Bird injuries and mortalities onsite (PG&E 2024-TN10032: Attachment 18) are at levels
7 determined to be SMALL in the LR GEIS.
8 LARGE. The sky used to be filled with birds when I was young. I just travelled to Big Sur, looked out over the ocean at the most protected cove, and saw three birds. The nuclear industry has killed everything.
Page 3-59 Bird injuries and mortalities onsite (PG&E 2024-TN10032: Attachment 18) are at levels 7
determined to be SMALL in the LR GEIS.
8 Why are there bird injuries onsite? I see there is a firing range onsite.
Pages 3-60 to 3-61 3.6.4.1 Non-cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources PG&E 10 has BMPs for herbicide-related activities on the Diablo Canyon site, and PG&E (PG&E 2023-11 TN9822) further states that regulatory programs for issues like stormwater management, spill 12 prevention, dredging, and herbicides further minimize impacts on terrestrial resources.
13 The NRC staff presumes that PG&E would continue to comply with the applicable requirements 17 of Federal and State regulatory programs. PG&E has procedures and policies relating to the 18 handling and management of migratory birds (PG&E 2023-TN9822: Sections 3.7.8.5, 4.6.6.4.4).
19 PG&Es nesting bird management plan has procedures to avoid and minimize disturbance with 20 nesting birds. PG&E holds a company-wide Federal Migratory Bird Special Purpose Utility 21 (SPUT) permit that authorizes the collection, transportation, and temporary possession of 22 migratory birds found dead on utility property, structures, and ROWs. The SPUT also authorizes 23 the relocation or destruction of active nests in emergency circumstance. Although PG&Es 24 SPUT expired on March 31, 2021, the FWS has not yet processed a new permit. While it waits 25 for the new SPUT, PG&E continues to operate under the terms of the previous SPUT and 26 company procedures relating to migratory bird management (PG&E 2024-TN10032: p. 25).
27
Another permit out of compliance.
Page 3-65 3.7 Aquatic Resources 3.7.1 Pacific Ocean 15 Diablo Canyon lies in central California in the eastern Pacific Ocean coastal region, an area 16 influenced by the California Current, which is a cold-water Pacific Ocean current that moves 17 southward along the western coast of North America, beginning off southern British Columbia 18 and ending off southern Baja California. The cold ocean water is highly productive due to the 19 upwelling caused by the prevailing northwesterly winds, which bring nutrient-rich waters to the 20 surface. This pattern allows for high levels of phytoplankton production that support diverse 21 marine life, including large population of whales, seabirds, and important fisheries.
22 And you are killing it by dumping radionuclides into the ocean. We need kelp farming to restore the krill, cool and clean-up the oceans. Close down Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Unit 2.
New and significant information:
Page 3-69 3.7.1.8 Marine Mammals California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), northern elephant seal 28 (Mirounga angustirostris) and southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris) are considered residential and 29 common at and near the Diablo Canyon site. Seasonally, several hundred sea lions seek 30 resting (haulout) habitat on dry land on Lion Rock, Pup Rock, and Pecho Rock. Diablo Rock and 31 the Intake Cove breakwater are small in comparison to these rocks and typically provide 32 marginal haulout habitat for sea lions. Local sea lion populations reach their peak in the fall as 33 the breeding populations disperse from the Channel Islands in the Southern California Bight.
34 Sea lions are wide ranging and may be found along the entire central California coastline.
35 Northern (Steller) sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) and northern elephant seals 36 (Mirounga angostrirostris) also occur near the Diablo Canyon site but are rare (PG&E 2023-37
TN9822).
38 Are all those dead sea lions, otters and seals I see on the beaches tested for radionuclides? This is important as the reality is that Fukushima has had a drastic effect on the Pacific Ocean. Diablo Canyon is only adding to that effect.
New and significant information:
Page 3-70 3.7.3 Commercially and Recreationally Important Species 33 Commercial fishing activities near Diablo Canyon fall under California Marine District 118 and 34 includes the Morro Bay statistical area. According to California commercial landings reports for 35 this statistical area, the following species are typically harvested with at least 1,000 lbs (450 kg) 36 in total landings annually: kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus), cabezon 37 (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), grenadier (family Macrourinae), Pacific hagfish 38 (Eptatretus stoutii), California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus),
39 opah (Lampis species), rockfish (Sebastes species), sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), chinook 40 salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis), shortfin mako shark 41 (Isurus oxyrinchus), thresher shark (Alopias species), barred surfperch 42 3-71 (Amphistichus argenteus), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), longspine thornyhead 1
(Sebastolobus altivelis), thornyhead shortspine (Sebastolobus alascanus), and albacore tuna 2
(Thunnus alalunga). Crustacean species like Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister), brown 3
rock crab (Cancer pagurus), red rock crab (Cancer productus), spider crab (superfamily 4
Majoidea), yellow rock crab (Metacarcinus anthonyi), California spiny lobster 5
(Panulirus interruptus), ridgeback prawn (Sicyonia ingentis), spot prawn (Pandalus platyceros),
6 and ocean shrimp (Pandalus species) and the mollusk market squid (Doryteuthis opalescens) 7 are all harvested at 1,000 lb (450 kg) or more in total annual landings. Of these species, chinook 8
salmon, sable fish, and Dungeness crab have the highest economic value (CDFW 2024-9 TN10106).
10
The CDFW monitors recreational fishing through the California Recreational Fisheries Survey 11 program. The primary target species or species groups near Diablo Canyon are chinook 12 salmon, rockfishes, lingcod, cabezon, kelp greenling, California halibut, sanddabs 13 (Citharichthys sordidus), and albacore tuna. Anglers from beaches and banks typically target 14 surfperches (family Embiotocidae), jack silverside (Atherinopsis californiensis), and several 15 nearshore rockfishes. Anglers from human-made structures target Pacific sardine 16 (Sardinops sagax), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), jack silverside, surfperches, white 17 croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), and several nearshore rockfishes (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
18 Commercial fishing activities near Diablo Canyon fall under California Marine District 118 and includes the Morro Bay statistical area. Then why did you dump all that man-made poison off the coast west of Morro Bay State Park? According to California commercial landings reports for this statistical area, the following species are typically harvested with at least 1,000 lbs (450 kg) in total landings annually: (see above). We are eating poisons created and used by Diablo Canyon when we eat the fish.
BIOACCUMULATION.
Page 3-72 3.7.5.1 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with 1
Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) 2 For plants with once-through cooling systems, such as Diablo Canyon, or cooling ponds, the 3
NRC determined in the LR GEIS that the impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms is 4
a Category 2 issue that requires site-specific evaluation for each proposed LR (NRC 2024-5 TN10161).
6 Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against the outer part of an intake structures 7
screening device (79 FR 48300-TN4488). The force of the intake water traps the organisms 8
against the screen, and individuals are unable to escape. Impingement can kill organisms 9
immediately or cause exhaustion, suffocation, injury, and other physical stresses that contribute 10 to later mortality. The potential for injury or death is generally related to the amount of time an 11 organism is impinged, its fragility (susceptibility to injury), and the physical characteristics of the 12 screen wash and fish return systems of the intake structure. The EPA has found that
13 impingement mortality is typically less than 100 percent if the cooling water intake system 14 includes fish return or backwash systems (79 FR 48300-TN4488). Because impingeable 15 organisms are typically fish with fully formed scales and skeletal structures and well-developed 16 survival traits, such as behavioral responses to avoid danger, many impinged organisms can 17 survive under proper conditions (79 FR 48300-TN4488).
18 Entrainment occurs when organisms pass through the screening device and travel through the 19 entire cooling system, including the pumps, condenser or heat exchanger tubes, and discharge 20 pipes (79 FR 48300-TN4488). Organisms susceptible to entrainment are of smaller size, such 21 as ichthyoplankton, larval stages of shellfish and other macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, and 22 phytoplankton. During travel through the cooling system, entrained organisms experience 23 physical trauma and stress, pressure changes, excess heat, and exposure to chemicals 24 (Mayhew et al. 2000-TN8458).
During travel through the cooling system, entrained organisms experience physical trauma and stress, pressure changes, excess heat, and exposure to chemicals (Mayhew et al. 2000-TN8458). Should state physical trauma and stress, pressure changes, excess heat, exposure to chemicals, AND RADIOACTIVITY.
Because entrainable organisms generally consist of fragile life 25 stages (e.g., eggs, which exhibit poor survival after interacting with a cooling water intake 26 structure, and early larvae, which lack a skeletal structure and swimming ability), the EPA has 27 concluded that, for purposes of assessing the impacts of a cooling water intake system on the 28 aquatic environment, all entrained organisms die (79 FR 48300-TN4488).
Absolutely horrible and unnecessary.
Page 3-73 Diablo Canyon Cooling Water Intake System 9
The Diablo Canyon cooling water intake system impinges and entrains aquatic organisms as it 10 withdraws water from the Pacific Ocean. Section 2.1.3 of this SEIS describes the cooling and 11 auxiliary water systems in detail. This section summarizes features of these systems relevant to 12 the impingement and entrainment analysis.
13
Pacific Ocean water in Intake Cove first interacts with Diablo Canyons cooling water intake 14 structure at a curtain wall located at the front of the intake structure. As Diablo Canyon 15 withdraws water, fish and other aquatic organisms that cannot swim fast enough to escape the 16 flow of water may be swept into the intake. Approach velocity into the mouth of the structure 17 (between the curtain wall and basement concrete floor) are relatively uniform at approximately 18 0.8 feet per second (fps) (0.2 m/s) (PG&E 2009-TN10113). Organisms within the source water 19 that cannot resist or escape this flow are drawn into the cooling water intake structure along with 20 the water.
21 Once drawn into the curtain wall, several barriers prevent large debris from entering the cooling 22 water intake system. First, organisms encounter bar racks with in. (1 cm) thick bars that 23 intercept large, submerged debris. Intake velocity at this point is approximately 1.1 fps (0.3 m/
s) 24 (PG&E 2009-TN10113). Second, traveling screens intercept material that is larger than the 25 0.375 in. (0.95 cm) square mesh openings. Organisms that are too large to pass through the 26 fixed screen mesh, such as juvenile and adult fish and shellfish, become impinged on the 27 screens. Intake velocity at the traveling screens varies from 1.8 to 2.3 fps (0.5 to 0.7 m/s) 28 (PG&E 2009-TN10113).
29 Diablo Canyons cooling water intake structure does not contain a fish return system, so all 30 impinged organisms are either collected at the trash racks or on the traveling screens and 31 disposed of as solid waste along with other debris (PG&E 2009-TN10113). However, some fish 32 should be able to swim away from the intake and escape impingement because of large 33 cut-outs that PG&E installed between the closure gate forebays and the two bar rack bays at 34 each end of the intake structure. These cut-outs provide a migration route for aquatic organisms 35 and a relatively uniform moderate intake velocity throughout the space created within the interior 36 of the structure (PG&E 2009-TN10113).
37 Organisms small enough to pass through the traveling screen mesh, such as fish eggs, larvae, 38
and other zooplankton, are entrained into the cooling water system. Entrained organisms pass 39 through the entire cooling system and re-enter the Pacific Ocean at Diablo Cove, along with 40 heated effluent. During this process, entrained organisms are subject to mechanical, thermal, 41 and toxic stresses.
During this process, entrained organisms are subject to mechanical, thermal, and toxic stresses. Once again you forgot to mention radioactivity. And by the way, you are total murderers. All just to boil water to turn a turbine.
New and significant information:
Page 3-75 California Once-Through Cooling Policy 16 In 2010, the SWRCB adopted the statewide Water Quality Control Policy on the Use of Coastal 17 and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling (referred to as the Once-Through Cooling (OTC) 18 Policy). The OTC Policy establishes uniform, technology-based standards to implement CWA 19 Section 316(b) and to reduce the harmful effects associated with cooling water intake structures 20 on marine and estuarine life. The SWRCB created this policy because, at the time, there were 21 no applicable nationwide standards to implement CWA Section 316(b) at existing power plants.
22 This policy has been amended several times, including following the EPAs issuance of the final 23 CWA Section 316(b) regulations for existing power plant facilities in 2014 described above.
24 The OTC Policy originally affected 19 once-through cooling power plants along the California 25 coast. The policy now affects 9 plants, as 10 of those plants have ceased operations. The OTC 26 Policy expresses a preference for closed-cycle wet cooling systems as the selected BTA, but it 27 allows for the SWRCB to establish site-specific BTA requirements for power plants based on the 28 results of special studies required under the Implementation Provisions (Section 3.D) of the 29 policy.
Does not take into account the world-wide heating effect of these plants on our oceans.
And Diablo gets to continue the murder as long as it pays a fee. I hope two more plants close down, Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Unit 2.
New and significant information:
Page 3-76 On September 2, 6
2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Senate Bill 846 (State of California 7
2022-TN10038) into law. Effective September 2, 2022, Senate Bill 846 established a new OTC 8
Policy compliance date for Diablo Canyon. Senate Bill 846 added Section 13193.5 to the Water 9
Code, which specifies, in part:
10 Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the State Water Resources Control 11 Boards Water Quality Control Plan on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for 12 Power Plant Cooling, as referenced in Section 2922 of Title 23 of the California Code of 13 Regulations, the final compliance dates for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 shall be 14 October 31, 2030.
This should have never happened:
PG&E Costs Soar to Almost $12B For Keeping Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Online Through 2030 YouTube.com Transcript Excerpt:
John Geesman. Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility:
Thank you Ken (Cook) I represent an organization called The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility in front of the California Public Utilities Commission. We filed a protest against PG&Es cost recovery application and that protest traces the escalation of cost estimates using PG&Es numbers since 2022 and it's really quite shocking. In 2022 when the legislation passed, PG&E submitted a Grant application to the federal government and used that same cost forecast with the Public Utilities Commission. Last May that number was 5.2 billion dollars to extend the operation of Diablo Canyon until 2030. Within 60 days in the PUC process last year (2023?) PG&E had increased that estimate from 5.2 billion up to 8.1 billion. Now the PUC ultimately determined that PG&Es cost forecast at 8.1 billion was incomplete and had not included necessary elements of what they will ultimately charge the rate payers. So the PUC said you've left us with no basis upon which to determine that going forward (the charges to the ratepayer) will be reasonable, prudent or cost effective. The PUC had a statutory deadline, so they extended the retirement dates but they said we want you, PG&E, to come back in 2024, no later than March 29th with a complete
forecast, one that includes every dollar that you contemplate charging the rate payers between now and the end of the extended operation period in 2030.
PG&E made that filing. We've gone through it with a fine tooth comb and it amounts to 11.8 billion. That's more than a doubling from the number that was used in 2022 to persuade the governor and the legislature to go forward with the extension. And let me put that in a slightly different context. In 2022 the governor's office told the legislature that they were expecting it to cost about
$75 a megawatt hour. PG&Es current forecast, using the 11.8 billion sum, works out to about $130 a megawatt hour, a rough doubling.
Now this plant has had above Market costs for a long time. PG&Es Grant application in 2022 acknowledged more than 2.1 billion dollars in above Market costs in the five years before they submitted the grant. Their current forecast indicates in the next five years, during the extended operation period, they expect above Market costs more than $4.1 billion dollars. The Public Utilities Commission, in May of this year, issued a report that required the (?) to do so (report) every year on performance under the state's renewable portfolio standard and they indicated that new contracts signed for renewable projects in 2023 had come in at $58 a megawatt hour. Contracts signed in 2022 were at
$62 a megawatt hour. So Diablo Canyon, using PG&Es own numbers is more than double the cost of these renewable projects according to the Public Utilities Commission (i.e.$130 a megawatt hour).
Now why is this plant so expensive? You can see that in PG&Es cost recovery application. Now they prefer to parcel things out. They very much resist giving you a look at the entire cost stream to 2030 so they've only requested recovery of the first year. They call that test year 2025 and they're asking for a little more than a billion dollars. In fact, it's 1 billion. $30,485,577 of that $1 billion they identify $497 million in what they call statutory fees. Those are the inducements that the legislature and the governor had to provide PG&E in order to get them to extend operation of the plant. If you recall in 2022 the great concern about keeping the lights on, would we need additional power for reliability purposes?,
and my client's going to take a backseat to nobody in terms of the importance of keeping the lights on. But the Public Utilities Commission, the energy commission, again in a May 2024 report indicated that that the Nome Administration has done a pretty good job of bringing new resources on. 18,800 megawatts of net qualifying capacity are expected to come online between 2020 and 2028. The Joint report of the two agencies indicated that the commission's preferred system plan meets the reliability standard through 2035. It also indicated that more than 8,000 megawatt of net qualifying capacity were online by the end of 2023. Now remember Diablo Canyon is worth about 2,240 megawatts. What the Public Utilities Commission and the energy commission report is indicating is that resources more than three times that amount were
online by the end of the year last year. In fact, the report identifies additional analysis performed by the energy commission. With this comment, the state remains reliable even under extreme scenarios. So the question is, and the state agencies are going to have to resolve this year, is there a better way to spend 11.8 billion? Would you buy twice as much in the way of reliability benefits or twice as much in the way of climate benefits if you directed those dollars toward renewable projects rather than propping up an old nuclear plant that is surrounded by earthquake faults?
Peter Bradford:
Beyond just the present increases, other safety issues have cost implications for Diablo Canyon that are not in these projections, even the latest ones. If these seismic and reactor Integrity concerns need fixing, more large increases can be expected. The doubling of a large cost estimate in less than a year is all too common in the nuclear power industry and it's usually a sign of more large increases to come. By the time the process is over, customers and tax payers will have paid a bill that would never have been approved if it had been candidly stated at the outset. The approval comes about through essentially salami tactics, in which the cost increases are divided into small amounts and the argument is always, Yes it's unfortunate. We wish we'd known this at the outset. But it won't cost that much more to go forward. To make matters worse, other cheaper low carbon electricity sources will have been crowded out in favor of a nuclear plant that must be run in order to recover its excessive costs. The California legislature was wise enough to write off-ramps into the legislation paving the way for extended Diablo Canyon operation.
Nothing cries OFF-RAMP more loudly than the doubling of a multi-billion dollar cost estimate in a little more than a year's time.
Ken Cook:
Peter thank you so much I think the picture that's emerging is a chronic record of vast cost underestimates by the nuclear industry on top of public questions about the ability of PG&E to frankly state the costs for any of its operations and seek recovery of those, including recovery from the enormous costs human and economic it has created through the massive wildfires started by its failure to maintain its equipment. So you have sort of a combination of two highly dubious sources of information to rest our future spending as rate payers in California on and that should be troubling for everybody. By the way, if PG&E has a a different set of numbers, it would be great to see them, but from my standpoint, I think what John has done is dug out in detail and reinforced by Peter's observations about this pattern in the nuclear industry, a very troubling picture. We should have had these answers two years ago but as Peter says maybe the bill wouldn't have gone forward if we had.
Linda Seely:
I want to say the other important issue to Mothers for Peace is the once through cooling at Diablo Canyon that people have kind of rushed under the carpet lately. Diablo Canyon sucks in 2.5 billion gallons of water through it every day and discharges it back into the Pacific Ocean 19° warmer than it was when it came in. During that process every single bit of Life which includes billions and billions of larvae of sea life are killed. Plus the heat from the nuclear reaction goes into the atmosphere constantly, warming our atmosphere. So this is another one of those issues that doesn't get a lot of attention but is extraordinarily important.
(Not sure who said this):
So the Basel load question, at least in terms of Diablo Canyon, is best seen as a reliability question. Reliability planners are trying to address 600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> a year, generally afternoons and evenings in four summer months. Diablo Canyon is designed to operate about 7,800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> a year. Thats 90% capacity factor and you got to ask yourself if youre operating at two times Market costs and you've got to run because of your technology design all the time, you're either all on or all off. And youre only trying to address a reliability issue that could come up within 600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> less than a tenth of your operating period. How did the economics of that make any sense? I think the response that the market has produced here in California with a great deal of nurturing from the Newsome Administration has been battery storage combined with solar power plants and from a reliability standard perspective that's a much better solution.
Ken Cook:
We have a question from Michael Blood at Associated Press How do you envision the legislature backing out of the agreement? What off-ramp from the Senate Bill 846 could be taken at this point and there is an offramp that's provided for that in that legislation?
(I think this was Peter Bradford talking):
Well I think that the first step appears to be underway, at least in the budget process. This year both subcommittees, the assembly subcommittee and the Senate subcommittee, and now the full senate committee, have removed from the budget the proposed augmentation of the Diablo Canyon loan of $400 million. I think they concluded that with the budget situation so tight, the last thing in the world they wanted to do was to stuff more money into PG&Es Pockets. And it's particularly noteworthy that the loan authorized in 2022 from the state general fund was for $1.4 billion. It was supposed to be matched off against a Federal grant of $1.1 billion but PG&E never applied for the
the full offsetting amount. Theres always been a $300 million gap so I think the legislature has started to try to correct those. It built into the law a number of off-ramps that the Public Utilities Commission or the state energy commission or the department water resources that are to monitor the loan can trigger and they're generally off ramps based on cost effectiveness and the sufficiency of renewable resources to meet the needs that Diablo otherwise would be meeting.
Peter Bradford:
As John indicated (in his) opening statement. the PUC explicitly deferred into the next phase of its proceeding the findings that it's required to make as to whether this arrangement is cost effective and Prudent. So if it concludes that it isnt, that prudence finding is tied among other things directly to the loan agreement. If the PUC were ever to say this is not cost of effective or prudent, the loan agreement itself would probably might well be invalidated. Well I would just add as an additional point, it would be great if a legislative committee really dug into this question and asked what is this extension actually going to cost. I don't think anyone's comfortable taking PG&Es word for it and, meaning no offense of course, it doesn't seem like the Public Utility Commission has the necessarily, the investigative rigor applied here that would necessarily reveal what the full cost might be too. So an additional independent investigation I think would be would be welcome.
Ken Cook:
A question from Serena Grai from KCBX. She asks: Can you clarify how the 11.8 billion ask from PG&E would impact California rate payers?
(Not sure who answered this)
I think that the only calculation that PG&E has made for that relates to the first test year 2025 recovery of the 1 billion dollars that they've requested. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that it's about a dollar a month in the PG&E service territory and about half of that in the Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric Service territories. I emphasize that's for that first test year and that is not a proportionate amount of the full extended operating period. The first test year includes 2024 and 2025 when much of the plant will have been paid for by a prior general rate case decision so it's not a full picture. My hunch is it's no more than about half of what the ultimate run rate will average going forward for test year 2026 through test year?
Ken Cook:
I have a question here from Audi Maffy I hope Im pronouncing that right, from KPFA Radio What will be the next step if PG&E doesn't pivot? I suppose that means if PG&E doesn't go in a direction to provide power other than through the extension of Diablo Canyon. What's the implication of that?
(Not sure who answered this)
Well, the Public Utilities Commission needs to rule this year on this first test year 2025 recovery of rates so they'll have a decision to make. A little more than a billion dollars passed through to every rate payer within the PG Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric System and about half of that billion dollars will be directed toward these various sweeteners that the legislature and the governor had to put into the law in order to get PG&E to go forward.
(Not sure who answered this ? Peter Bradford?)
One very important measure that the California commission might consider we did it in New York with regard to a situation where nuclear costs were running away is the imposing of a hard cap on just how much was going to be allowable.
Usually you look at the cost of alternatives as well as the cost estimates that you were originally furnished in making the commitment to the plant in order to set that cap. That way, if the expenditures do run away above the cap, it's not the customers and the taxpayers are exposed it's the utility shareholders; which is really the way the historic process of building power plants worked. You financed them and put them in the right base and collected a return and the shareholders benefited. That way, the shareholders are the ones with the stakes in managing the costs. The system Diablo Canyon has now created is what's called kind of a moral hazard situation in that the people in charge of managing the plants really aren't the ones exposed to the consequences of the cost overruns. They're pointed towards federal taxpayers, state taxpayers and California rate payers from the southern tip of the state to the Northern end. Under the unique California system, these costs flow to Southern California Edison and San Diego as well, so right now the costs and the responsibility for controlling the costs are not in the same place. Just to make sure I'm clear on this, people all over the state who won't receive a single electron of power from this nuclear plant as it's extended at whatever cost, 11.8 billion, maybe it's higher, theyll be paying additional fees on their electric bill, even though they're not served directly by Diablo Canyon. I've never seen in any place that I've regulated or consulted in an arrangement like the one California set up for charging Diablo to the customers of regulated utilities who don't get any power from it. Yeah, and what a concept of having the folks who own PG&E, and who had $2.2 billion dollar in profits last year, record profits, a 25% increase
over the year before, what a concept to have them pick up the tab for these cost overruns instead of rate payers and taxpayers.
Ken Cook:
Okay. We have another question here from Julie small from KQED. Julie asks how confident are you in the California public utility commission's ability to analyze and assess the risks and costs of bringing Diablo or keeping Diablo online and do you have a sense of when the CPUC will make decisions about these matters?
That is a terrific question and it's a little bit awkward personally. I have been a Critic of the Public Utilities Commission since I was the executive director of the state energy Commission in the 1970s. But I will tell you I think I probably have more confidence in their ability, both at the commissioner level and among the staff, in order to sort this out, then most people you're going to run into. I don't think the problem is likely to be a lack of analytic capability on the part of the commission. They will likely have to make a decision at least on this first year by the end of calendar year 2024. Hopefully they'll make a decision based on the full extension period. But PG&E has emphasized all they're seeking is recovery of the first years cost. They're not asking for anything more than that. As Peter indicated, this is the salami approach to the utility business. Just show them a little piece at a time. But I think the Public Utilities Commission is able to get to the bottom of this.
Peter Bradford:
I as a former PUC chair in other states, I have looked at that question from both sides now and there, I'm sure, are a lot of good people, including Commissioners on that commission. And if they're free to take an independent and thorough look, I don't doubt that they can do it. At the same time, there are in all regulatory situations, huge resource questions. I mean the resources really are very heavily on the side of the utilities and that's why one looks also for regulatory techniques that don't require a high degree of perfect prophecy from the Regulatory Agencies. Youve got to know you're not going to get that, it just cant. And in particular, in a situation like this, one would like at some point to be able to require that Diablo Canyons next five years have to compete against all other available resources in a fully open auction process with all the costs on the table. For all of those resources that doesnt require the Regulators to (bring) profits, it just requires them to design effective Market
mechanisms. So by and large, nuclear power avoids those kinds of competition because they don't win them.
Ken Cook:
Well I think that's all the questions we have from the reporters on the call. I want to thank all of them for joining and thank all of our panelists for your expertise and your clear explanations. We will look forward to seeing just how this pans out. I find myself hoping that at some point these kinds of costs that PG&E commonly brings to us will be brought under control. I think we're seeing growing concern in the legislature or certainly growing concern in the public amongst rate payers for the constantly escalating cost of electricity in the state and spending that seems to be out of control. Let's hope this is not an example that the CPUC doesn't move forward and assume that because the legislature said so we'll spend whatever it takes. Hope that's not going to be the case but 11.8 billion, the number that's been discovered by by John Geesman in these regulatory, filings is a matter that should concern everyone in California.
And we hope that something will be done soon to make sure we have more clarity, at minimum, for what we're on the hook for.
Thank you everyone. Appreciate your time and if you have follow-ups please contact Iris Meer who's our Communications lead on this call. Thanks so much.
Page 3-76 Under this option, PG&E demonstrates compliance with 21 the interim mitigation requirement by providing funding to the Ocean Protection Council or State 22 Coastal Conservancy to fund appropriate mitigation projects.
I wonder if the Ocean Protection Council or the State Coastal Conservancy knows this water is not only thermally hot but also RADIOACTIVE, which will give off heat essentially forever? The fee should be much higher and taken out of stockholder pockets, not passed on to rate-payers. And these and other fees are being passed on to rate-payers throughout the state that are not even PG&E customers!
New and significant information:
The interim mitigation 31 payment for Diablo Canyon for the operating period of October 1, 2020, through September 30, 32 2021, was $4,356,867. With the passage of Senate Bill 846, PG&E would continue to pay the
33 mitigation fee through October 31, 2030.
This money Diablo Canyon pays is passed on to the rate payers. That is why rates are so high. Governor Gavin Newsom has recently said he will investigate why rates are so high.
Close down Diablo Canyon and the rates will decrease. The money should come out of stockholder pockets, not the rate payers.
New and significant information:
Page 3-76 Analysis Approach 35 When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting 36 authority with respect to the impacts of impingement and entrainment. Therefore, if the NPDES 37 permitting authority has made BTA determinations for a facility pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) 38 in accordance with the current regulations specified in 40 CFR Part 122 (TN2769) and 39 40 CFR Part 125 (TN254), which were promulgated in 2014 (79 FR 48300-TN4488), and that 40 facility has implemented any associated requirements or those requirements would be 41 implemented before the proposed LR period, then the NRC staff assumes that adverse impacts 42 on the aquatic environment will be minimized. In such cases, the NRC staff concludes that the 43 impacts of either IM, entrainment, or both would be SMALL for the proposed LR term.
Slightly less than 100% impingement is LARGE, not small. 100% entrainment out of 100%
is LARGE, not small.
Page 3-77 Baseline Condition of the Resource 11 For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff assumes that the baseline condition of the 12 resource is the central California Pacific Ocean aquatic community as it occurs today, which is 13 described in Section 3.7.1 of this SEIS. While species richness, evenness, and diversity within 14 the community may change or shift between now and when the proposed LR period would 15 begin, the NRC staff finds the present aquatic community to be a reasonable surrogate in the 16 absence of fishery and species-specific projections.
This is the problem BASELINE should be how the ocean and marine life was BEFORE Diablo went on line. You are using today, which is post multiple years of murder to our ocean as a baseline. And yes, unless Diablo is closed immediately, the species richness, evenness and diversity will continue to decline. Its already baked in because of the hazardous lifetimes of these radionuclides. And dumping them west of Morro Bay has only concentrated the nuclides into a radioactive dump in our ocean in California Marine District 118 that ensures a FOREVER decline in species richness, evenness, and diversity.
Page 3-78 Location of the Facilitys Intake Steinbeck (2008-TN10210) determined that 19 despite Diablo Canyons relatively high seawater intake design volume of 9.58 million cubic 20 meters per day (2,530 MGD), the plant has the lowest impingement biomass per million gallons 21 circulated of all the coastal plants in California using once-through cooling, in part, because of 22 the reduced biological productivity immediately surrounding the intake structure.
23 Steinbeck (2008-TN10210) found that impingement is relatively low because the intake 24 structure lies in a relatively confined engineered cove and because the cove is along an 25 exposed section of coastline, which is less biologically productive as compared to protected 26 areas of the coastline that have not been significantly affected by anthropogenic activities.
It is less biologically productive because radiation, impingement and entrainment has killed everything over the past 40 years of operation.
Page 3-78 Intake Velocity Nonetheless, the through screen 4
velocity, which exceeds EPA recommendations, could adversely affect smaller, slower fish;
5 early life stages; and less mobile organisms and life stages.
Could adversely? It definitely DOES adversely affect smaller, slower fish; early life stages; and less mobile organisms and life stages.
Page 3-79 Impingement Studies 7
From April 1985 to March 1986, Tenera (PG&E 2010-TN10119) conducted an impingement 8
study at Diablo Canyon in connection with CWA Section 316(b) requirements. Appendix G.1 of 9
this SEIS describes the methodology, major findings, and conclusions of this study. In
- summary, 10 the study found that the cooling water intake system rarely impinged adult fish. Most fish 11 impinged at Diablo Canyon were small, young-of-the-year juveniles and most of these were 12 yellow or olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides, 20 percent of fish collected), thornback rays 13 (Raja clavata, 14 percent of fish collected), and plainfin midshipmen (Porichthys notatus, 14 5 percent of fish collected). Researchers also collected a relatively small number of impinged 15 shellfish, predominantly consisting of rock crabs (Romaleon antennarius) and sharpnose crabs 16 (Scyra acutifrons).
If you kill off the babies, then you have no adults.
Page 3-79 Entrainment Studies The entrainment studies indicate that the impacts of entrainment have neither 1
destabilized nor noticeably altered any important attribute of the aquatic environment during the 2
Diablo Canyon current operating license term.
You need to compare BEFORE Diablo Canyon was built to now and you will see a major difference.
Page 3-80 3.7.5.2 Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling 24 Systems or Cooling Ponds) 25 For plants with once-through cooling systems, such as Diablo Canyon, or cooling ponds, the 26
NRC determined in the 2024 LR GEIS that the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms 27 is a Category 2 issue that requires site-specific evaluation for each proposed LR (NRC 2024-28 TN10161).
29 The primary form of thermal impact of concern at Diablo Canyon is heat shock. Heat shock 30 occurs when water temperature meets or exceeds the thermal tolerance of an aquatic species 31 for some duration of the exposure (NRC 2024-TN10161). In most situations, fish can avoid 32 areas that exceed their thermal tolerance limits, although some aquatic species or life stages 33 lack such mobility. Heat shock is typically observable only for fish because they tend to float 34 when dead. In addition to heat shock, thermal plumes resulting from thermal effluent can create 35 barriers to fish passage, which is of particular concern for migratory species. Thermal plumes 36 can also reduce the available aquatic habitat or alter habitat characteristics in a manner that 37 results in cascading effects on the local aquatic community.
The primary form of thermal impact of concern at Diablo Canyon is heat shock. Heat shock occurs when water temperature meets or exceeds the thermal tolerance of an aquatic species for some duration of the exposure (NRC 2024-TN10161).
Just horrible and unnecessary! The thermal shock continues forever as the RADIOACTIVE NUCLIDES released into the water continuously bombard the aquatic species.
Thermal plumes can also reduce the available aquatic habitat or alter habitat characteristics in a manner that results in cascading effects on the local aquatic community.
This should read Thermal radioactive plumes Page 3-80 Diablo Canyon Effluent Discharge 39 Diablo Canyon discharges heated effluent to Diablo Cove, which flows into the Pacific Ocean.
Should read Diablo Canyon discharges radioactive heated effluent to Diablo Cove, which flows into the Pacific Ocean.
Page 3-81 The surface plume is subject to buoyant 23 spreading that is an essential process in dissipating waste heat to the atmosphere (PG&E 2023-24 TN9822).
Once again, another way nuclear power plants add heat to our atmosphere. We do not need more heat in our atmosphere that is trapped by CO2 from fossil fuels and nuclear power mining, milling, transport, etc Page 3-81 Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Requirements for Point Source Discharges 26 CWA Section 316(a) addresses the adverse environmental impacts associated with thermal 27 discharges into waters of the United States. This section of the act grants the EPA the authority 28 to impose alternative, less-stringent, facility-specific effluent limits (called variances) on the 29 thermal component of point source discharges. To be eligible, facilities must demonstrate, to the 30 satisfaction of the NPDES permitting authority, that facility-specific effluent limitations will ensure 31 the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and 32 wildlife in and on the receiving body of water. CWA Section 316(a) variances are valid for the 33 term of the NPDES permit (i.e., 5 years). Facilities must reapply for variances with each NPDES 34 permit renewal application. The EPA issued regulations under CWA Section 316(a) at 35 40 CFR 125, Subpart H (TN254).
When dealing with a nuclear power plant there should be consideration for RADIOACTIVELY THERMAL, not just thermal.
Page 3-81 36 Analysis Approach 37 When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting 38 authority with respect to thermal impacts on aquatic organisms. Therefore, if the NPDES 39 permitting authority has made a determination under CWA Section 316(a) that thermal effluent 40 limits are sufficiently stringent to ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, 41 indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving body of water, and 42 the facility has implemented any associated requirements, then the NRC staff assumes that 43 adverse impacts on the aquatic environment will be minimized (see 10 CFR 51.10(c) 44
[TN10253]; 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B); and 10 CFR 51.71(d)). In such cases, the NRC staff 45 concludes that thermal impacts on aquatic organisms would be SMALL.
Should be LARGE. Does the Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Requirements for Point Source Discharges CWA Section 316(a) address the adverse environmental impacts associated with ACCUMULATION OF RADIOACTIVE discharges into waters of the United States? DOES IT CONSIDER BIOACCUMULATION? If not, it should. Im not sure how many people in these agencies writing legislation and making policy decisions realize you are dumping RADIONUCLIDES into our oceans, WITH THE CONSEQUENCE OF FOREVER HEATING THEM UP as the RADIONUCLIDES DECAY.
Page 3-82 Baseline Condition of the Resource 11 For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff assumes that the baseline condition of the 12 resource is the nearshore Pacific Ocean aquatic community as it occurs today, which is 13 described in Section 3.7 of this SEIS. While species richness, evenness, and diversity within the 14 community may change or shift between now and when the proposed LR period would begin, 15 the NRC staff finds the present aquatic community to be a reasonable surrogate in the absence 16 of fishery and species-specific projections.
17 Once again, baseline should be BEFORE the plant was built.
New and significant information:
Page 3-82 NPDES Permit Provisions Pertaining to Thermal Effluent Discharges 23 The Diablo Canyon NPDES permit contains effluent limitation criteria and receiving water 24 limitations. NPDES permit Effluent Limitation B.1(f) specifies that the daily average discharge 25 temperature shall not exceed the daily average of the natural temperature of the intake water by 26 more than 22°F (12.2°C) except during heat treatment for demusseling. During heat treatment, 27 PG&E follows the NPDES permit Effluent Limitation B.1(g), which specifies that the daily 28 average discharge temperature shall not exceed the daily average of the natural temperature of 29 the intake water by more than 25°F (13.9°C), and the maximum temperature increase (delta T) 30 measured at the point of discharge of the unit being treated shall be less than 50°F (27.8°C) 31 over that of the intake. The duration of maximum temperature during heat treatment of any half-32
condenser shall not exceed 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> during any 24-hour period.
50 degrees F every day for one hour is allowed. No wonder our planet is in trouble. Do they clean the pipes every day?
The adverse environmental impacts are great and the license should not be renewed.
Three nuclear reactors melted down at Fukushima in 2011 (Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit
- 3) with three exploding (Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4) and, in the case of reactor #3, it was MOX fuel that was spread throughout our atmosphere, with some particles landing on the arctic ice (and in Seattle and elsewhere). Unit 4 contained a spent fuel pool that exploded. Three of the reactor cores are leaking hot radionuclides into the Pacific Ocean forever. That heated Pacific Ocean water passes through the Bering Strait and melts the Arctic ice. Videos show Arctic ice melting from the Bering Strait, west side of the Arctic ice sheet in 2011 and on. 2012 is when Greenland almost completely melted from all the atmospheric heat released at Fukushima. 2011-2012 is also when the jet stream stalled and has been affected to this day from the heat consequences of GE American Mark 1 nuclear reactors in Japan that exploded. This should have closed down the industry but instead the cover-up began. Radiation monitors were turned off and food, water and product radiation acceptable levels were raised. There was then a push for Americans to consume MORE electricity, keep everything plugged in 24/7 (including your new Microsoft X-Box) and living off-grid has been violently discouraged. And now we have AI and cryptocurrency and the threat that there wont be enough power. Lets regain our senses and use renewables and alcohol as fuel and shut down the heat and cancer producing nuclear industry.
All nuke plants (and some other plants as well) take in water and dump it back out hotter into our oceans, rivers and lakes. In the case of nuke plants, radionuclides are present in that water. Our earth is a closed loop system. The hot, radioactive water migrates to the ice and melts it. Plus radionuclides give off heat (some forever) as they decay. The CO2 traps the heat but THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS THE HEAT GENERATOR. How many plants use water to cool off their systems, using our precious water as a heat sink and a dumping ground for their chemical/radioactive waste?
Diablo Canyon is allowed to release water and effluent up to 25 degrees F warmer than the intake temperature during normal operations and spikes up to 50 degrees F warmer, ONE HOUR/DAY during demussleing. Over the years, the intake temperature rises and so does the outflow temperature.
THERE IS NO CAP on how hot the intake temperature can be. The policy just allows the 25 degrees F to 50 degrees F increase over the intake temperature. That sets up a vicious cycle to continuously increase the
temperature of our oceans. And that is what is happening as the ice is melting at the polar caps of our planet.
To get the entire world-wide oceanic, lake, river, stream picture:
Boiling water reactors operate at 285 degrees C = 545 degrees F Pressure water reactors operate at 315 degrees C = 599 degrees F Nuclear fission power plants: 440 plants world-wide (not counting the military) operating 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />s/day, 7 days/week, 365 days/year with planned outages every 18-21 months to re-fuel and then start the radioactive heat process back up. All to boil water at 212 degrees F to produce steam that turns a turbine.
Its like cutting butter with a chainsaw.
Nuclear fusion:
150,000,000 degrees C is 270,000,032 degrees F. They have put a sun on planet earth and they call it a "clean energy source!
This particular quote is re: Diablo Canyon.
For nearly four decades, 2.5 billion gallons of water have been sucked into the plant each day. It has then been pumped back into the Pacific Ocean 19 degrees F warmer. This process kills enormous amounts of aquatic life, altering the marine environment of Diablo Cove, making it uninhabitable for many native species. The California Coastal Commission declared, It would be fair to categorize Diablo Canyon as Californias largest marine predator. " Kevin Kamps Way too much heat generated by nuclear power plants. Shut Them Down! Now is the time to stop heating this planet. Do not re-license Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2.
Page 3-83 Beneficial uses identified in the NPDES permit include water-contact recreation, non-contact 1
water recreation, including aesthetic enjoyment, industrial water supply, navigation, marine 2
habitat, shellfish harvesting, preservation of rare and endangered species, wildlife habitat, and 3
ocean commercial and sport fishing.
4 PG&E monitors the marine environment near Diablo Canyon and submits annual RWMP 5
reports to the CCRWQCB in accordance with other provisions of the NPDES permit. These 6
reports document that PG&E is in continual compliance with the 22°F (12.2°C) delta T effluent
7 limit. Appendix G.4 of this SEIS summarizes the results of this monitoring effort, as well as 8
several other thermal effects studies dating back to 1976, prior to operation of the plant.
9 In 2021, the CCRWQCB filed a complaint with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court following the 10 agencys investigations of alleged NPDES permit violations associated with Diablo Canyons 11 thermal effluent discharge. The CCRWQCB and PG&E negotiated a settlement concerning 12 these allegations. In the associated Consent Judgement, the San Luis Obispo Superior Court 13 (PG&E 2024-TN10032) documents PG&Es agreement to make a one-time payment to the Bay 14 Foundation of Morro Bay to benefit water quality and the environment on Californias Central 15 Coast. Notably, the Consent Judgement does not make specific conclusions regarding whether 16 PG&E violated its NPDES permit.
17 My judgement is that they have and continue to violate the NPDES permit. There will only be more discharges as aging nuclear power plants leak and Diablo Canyon consists of two aging nuke plants. Didnt they violated the permit in 2024 when they dumped approximately 26,000 cubic yards of RADIOACTiVE/CHEMICAL/OIL contaminated sand, sediment and kelp at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nearshore Placement Area located south of the entrance to Morrow Bay and west of Morrow Bay State Park? They created a nuclear dump in the ocean. Did they get a license for that? They got a permit for the dredging but dont you need a license to create a new nuclear/chemical dump? I believe they owe the Bay Foundation of Morro Bay some more money.
New and significant information:
Page 3-84 Thermal Studies In conjunction with CCRWQCBs 2021 complaint described previously in this section, the San 1
Luis Obispo Superior Court discussed the results of thermal monitoring associated with Diablo 2
Canyons thermal effluent and found the following (PG&E 2024-TN10032):
3
- Changes within the discharge area are well-documented and well-understood.
4
- The geographical extent of the biological changes due to the thermal discharge has 5
stabilized, with ecologically significant changes limited to Diablo Cove.
6
- The discharge temperature has remained steady during plant operations and will remain 7
steady until Diablo Canyon ceases power-generating operations.
8 Changes within the discharge area are well-documented and well-understood.
Not true if radionuclides were not considered.
The geographical extent of the biological changes due to the thermal discharge has stabilized, with ecologically significant changes limited to Diablo Cove.
Not true. Radionuclides continue to be added to the ocean so that is not a stabilized system. And you have involved the Morro Bay Area by creating a nuclear/chemical dump off the coast in the ocean outside of Diablo Cove.
The discharge temperature has remained steady during plant operations and will remain steady until Diablo Canyon ceases power-generating operations.
Thats not what happened at Fukushima in 2011. Three nuclear reactors blew up at Fukushima and, in the case of reactor #3, it was MOX fuel that was spread throughout our atmosphere, with some particles landing on the arctic ice (and in Seattle), melting the ice in an ongoing fashion. A spent fuel pool blew up adding more heat to the atmosphere.
Plus the three melted cores are daily adding heat into the Pacific Ocean. The heat travels north through the Bering Strait furthering ice melt in the Arctic. The atmosphere was so hot in 2012 that Greenland almost melted. Thats also when the jet stream changed by slowing down with wild swings to the north and south affecting our climate. NUCLEAR POWER DID ALL THAT. Add that to your thermal studies.
Page 3-84 Thermal Impacts Conclusion 16 Because PG&E operates Diablo Canyon in compliance with the thermal discharge provisions in 17 its NPDES permit, a CWA Section 316(a) variance does not apply to Diablo Canyon operation, 18 and the NRC staff finds that the adverse impacts on the aquatic environment associated thermal 19 effluent are minimized. Further, thermal monitoring indicates that biological changes from Diablo 20 Canyons thermal effluent have stabilized and that ecologically significant changes are limited to 21 Diablo Cove. Because the characteristics of the thermal effluent would remain the same under 22 the proposed action, the NRC staff anticipates similar effects during the proposed LR period.
23 Further, the CCRWQCB will continue to ensure PG&Es continued compliance with the NPDES 24 permit. The CCRWQCB may require additional mitigation or monitoring in a future renewed 25 NPDES permit if it deems such actions to be appropriate to assure the protection and 26 propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the 27
Pacific Ocean. The NRC staff assumes that any additional requirements that the CCRWQCB 28 imposes would further reduce the impacts of Diablo Canyons thermal effluent over the course 29 of the proposed LR term. For these reasons, the NRC staff finds that thermal impacts during the 30 proposed LR period would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 31 aquatic environment and would, therefore, result in SMALL impacts on aquatic organisms.
Further, thermal monitoring indicates that biological changes from Diablo Canyons thermal effluent have stabilized and that ecologically significant changes are limited to Diablo Cove.
No, in 2024, you added a nuclear/chemical dump to the ocean west of Morro Bay State Park. And you will be adding more radionuclides to the water. That is NOT stabilization.
As nuclear power plants age, they leak more radionuclides which cause more heat to be released to the atmosphere and water. There is also the possibility of an accident releasing the core temperature into our atmosphere, water and land. All nuclear power plants should be closed due to heat generation. Our environment cannot tolerate more heat. Continuing operation of Diablo Canyon adds a LARGE thermal impact to our planet.
Page 3-84 3.7.6 No-Action Alternative 33 If Diablo Canyon were to permanently cease operating, impacts on the aquatic environment 34 would decrease or stop following reactor shutdown. Some withdrawal of water from the Pacific 35 Ocean would continue during the shutdown period to provide cooling to spent fuel in the spent 36 fuel pool until that fuel could be transferred to dry storage. The amount of water withdrawn for 37 this purpose would be a small fraction of water withdrawals during operations, would decrease 38 over time, and would likely end within the first several years following shutdown. The reduced 39 demand for cooling water would substantially decrease the effects of impingement, entrainment, 40 and thermal effluent on aquatic organisms, and these effects would entirely cease following the 41 transfer of spent fuel to dry storage. Effects from cold shock would be unlikely, given the small 42 area of the ocean affected by thermal effluent under normal operating conditions, combined with 43 the phased reductions in withdrawal and discharge of ocean water that would occur following 44 shutdown.
45 3-85
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of the no-action alternative on 1
aquatic resources would be SMALL.
The impacts of the no-action alternative on aquatic resources would be LARGE. You would stop adding to the heating of the oceans. You would stop producing more radionuclides that contaminate the oceans, air, lands and aquifers. You would allow for radionuclides to start the decay process. You would allow for our planet to start to heal and stop further heating of our atmosphere. You would stop the added mutations that would result from the continued operation of the plants. You would avoid a nuclear accident in the future. You would avoid charging the ratepayers extra money as alternatives are cheaper.
New and significant information:
Page 3-87 Intake Cove: Diablo Canyon withdraws Pacific Ocean water from Intake Cove. Intake Cove is an 33 artificial embayment that consists of sand and soft sediments, boulder fields, low rock ridges, 34 and emergent rocks. The shoreline within the cove consists of a granite boulder riprap-armored 35 and graded road, a vertical concrete curtain wall forming the ocean-side of the intake structure, 36 and sections of natural rock upcoast of the cooling water intake structure. The depth of Intake 37 Cove ranges from 16 ft (4.9 m) below MLLW in the eastern portion of the cove to 33 ft (10 m) 38 below MLLW adjacent to the intake structure (SLOC 2023-TN10105). As explained in 39 Section 3.7.5 of this SEIS, fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms within Intake Cove may 40 be subject to impingement or entrainment.
Should the above description be changed to reflect the dredging of 26,000 cubic yards of RADIOACTiVE/CHEMICAL/OIL contaminated sand, sediment and kelp that was moved to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nearshore Placement Area located south of the entrance to Morrow Bay and west of Morrow Bay State Park? The above description is no longer accurate. PG&E was authorized to dredge up to 70,000 cubic yards (53,519 cubic m [m3]) of accumulated sand and sediment from within a 125,000 square foot (ft2)
(11,613 square meter [m2]) dredge footprint at the north end of Intake Cove to a depth of
-38 ft mean lower low water.
New and significant information:
Page 3-88 Pacific Ocean: Based on NPDES plume surveys from 1986 to 1990 (PG&E 2008-TN10104),
7 Diablo Canyons thermal plume is primarily detectable between 0.5 and 1 mi (0.8 and 1.6 km) 8
offshore (41 to 60 percent of survey samples) with a maximum extent of 2 mi (3.2 km) either 9
north or south of Diablo Cove during certain tidal conditions.
New (RADIOACTIVE) thermal plume studies need to be preformed at the new nuclear/
chemical dump site at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nearshore Placement Area located south of the entrance to Morrow Bay and west of Morrow Bay State Park. This is especially true since Diablo Canyons thermal plume is detectable south of Diablo Cove during certain tidal conditions. That means the RADIOACTIVE thermal plume is subject to entering Intake Cove. Diablo Cove: Diablo Cove lies to the north of Intake Cove. This cove receives Diablo Canyons thermal effluent discharge of Pacific Ocean water that the plant withdraws from Intake Cove for cooling purposes. And we all know that water is radioactive.
New and significant information:
Pages 3-108 to 3-109 Humpback Whale Critical Habitat 40 In 2011, the NMFS designated approximately 59,411 square nautical miles (nmi2) (203,774 km2) 41 of marine habitat in the North Pacific Ocean, including areas within the eastern Bering Sea and 42 Gulf of Alaska, as critical habitat for the humpback whale (81 FR 62260-TN10263). California 43 Central Coast Unit 17 begins approximately 0.6 mi (1 km) offshore from the Diablo Canyon site.
44 3-109 This unit includes waters off southern Monterey County and San Luis Obispo and Santa 1
Barbara counties. Unit 17 covers about 6,697 nmi2 (22,970 km2) of marine habitat.
2 In its final rule (81 FR 62260-TN10263), the NMFS identifies prey as the single physical and 3
biological feature (PBF) essential to the conservation of the species. The final rule describes 4
prey within critical habitat of each of the DPSs with critical habitat.
5
- Central American DPS: Prey species, primarily euphausiids (Thysanoessa, Euphausia, 6
Nyctiphanes, and Nematoscelis) and small pelagic schooling fishes, such as Pacific sardine 7
(Sardinops sagax), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), and Pacific herring 8
(Clupea pallasii), of sufficient quality, abundance, and accessibility within humpback whale 9
feeding areas to support feeding and population growth.
10
- Mexico DPS: The above prey species, as well as capelin (Mallotus villosus), juvenile 11 walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus), and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes personatus).
12
Within the action area, Pacific sardine and northern anchovy commonly occur in nearshore 13 areas (see Section 3.7.1.7). The remaining species have not been specifically documented in 14 aquatic surveys.In its final rule (81 FR 62260-TN10263), the NMFS identifies prey as the single physical and 3
biological feature (PBF) essential to the conservation of the species.
4 Unfortunately the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska and all of the Pacific Ocean is being affected by the Fukushima Nuclear disaster of March 2011.
New and significant information:
Page 3-112 3.8.2 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat 1
Congress enacted the MSA in 1976 to foster long-term biological and economic sustainability of 2
the Nations marine fisheries (TN9966). The MSA directs the Fishery Management Councils, in 3
conjunction with the NMFS, to designate areas of essential fish habitat (EFH) and to manage 4
marine resources within those areas. The EFH represents the coastal and marine waters and 5
substrate necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity (50 CFR Part 600-6 TN1342).
Because this designation 25 is broad, all marine waters within the affected area for Diablo Canyon LR are EFH for all life 26 stages of coastal pelagic species.
Then you should close Diablo Canyon.
Euphausiid (Krill)
Page 3-113 Ramboll (PG&E 2024-TN10611: see enclosed Essential Fish Habitat Assessment prepared by 34 Ramboll) determined that krill have a low likelihood of occurring within the affected area for 35 Diablo Canyon LR based on data from past and ongoing aquatic studies.
I bet they thrived there before Diablo Canyon was built.
Page 3-117 3.8.4 Proposed Action 4
The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of Diablo Canyon LR on 5
the environmental issues related to Federally protected ecological resources.
6 3.8.4.1 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats Under U.S.
Fish 7
and Wildlife Service Jurisdiction You do not even mention the radioactive nuclides released into the air, water and on the land.This is BS.
New and significant information:
Page 3-122 Conclusion for the California Red-Legged Frog 8
All potential effects on the California red-legged frog resulting from the proposed action would 9
be insignificant. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may affect but is 10 not likely to adversely affect the California red-legged frog. The NRC staff will seek FWS 11 concurrence with this determination following the issuance of this draft SEIS.
You want us to believe that tritium got into the sump pump from the radioactive gases released at your site. Dont you think that tritium and Xenon-133 would affect the frogs as well? No mention of radioactivity here when that is what youre primarily producing.
Pages 3-47 to 3-48 The issue of radionuclides released to groundwater was discussed and evaluated in Sections 3.6.4.2 and 4.5.5 of the ER (PG&E 2023-TN9822). PG&E monitors groundwater at Diablo Canyon for inadvertent release as part of its groundwater protection program, which was implemented in 2006 to conform to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 07-07 (NEI 2019-TN6775) and to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1501 (TN283). Section 3.6.4.2 of the ER (PG&E 2023-TN9822) describes the detection of low levels of tritium in samples from the plants French drain system. Based on its review of the available information, the NRC staff concludes that low levels of tritium present in samples from the French drain system are not indicative of inadvertent releases from the plant but likely result from rain washout of tritium deposited from regulated releases of gaseous effluents.
Section 3.6.4.2 of the ER also describes the detection of low levels of tritium in water samples from the vault sumps of the Old Steam Generator Storage Facility. These releases are also attributed to rain washout. The NRC staff concludes that these sample results do not indicate an inadvertent release of radionuclides to groundwater.
3.8.4.1.2 Southern Sea Otter 13 In Section 3.8.1.2 of this SEIS, the NRC staff determined that the southern sea otter is a 14 resident within the action area. PG&E (2023-TN9822) reports regular sightings of this species at
15 the site, and females and pups are known to frequent Intake Cove in groups of up to 30 16 individuals.
The primary direct impacts that southern sea otters could experience from the proposed action 18 of Diablo Canyon LR is altered behavior in the form of avoidance of the Intake Cove or Diablo 19 Cove areas from noise and other human activities on the Diablo Canyon site. However, otters in 20 the area have become acclimated to the industrial nature of the site and do not appear to avoid 21 the area. On the contrary, otters regularly inhabit Intake Cove in large groups. Based on the 22 NRC staffs best judgement, the continued operation of Diablo Canyon during the proposed 23 LR term is unlikely to result in behavioral changes that would be able to be meaningfully 24 measured, detected, or evaluated. Accordingly, this represents an insignificant effect.
No where do you mention the radioactivity you release into the water that DOES affect the otters. The radioactivity is released into Diablo Cove and a percentage of that is recirculated into Intake Cove. A vicious circulatory cycle that concentrates the radionuclides. Altered behavior in the form of avoidance of the Intake Cove or Diablo Cove areas would be the thing that SAVES the otter. Stop creating more radionuclides.
Shut down Diablo Canyon.
In addition to direct impacts, the NRC staff considered indirect impacts. The primary indirect 33 impact would be the potential reduction in available prey from impingement, entrainment, or 34 thermal effects on these organisms.
Once again, you forgot to mention radioactivity as a direct or indirect impact.
Radioactivity is what Diablo Canyon is producing. Diablo Canyon is a cancer factory.
Diablo Canyon creates radionuclides at 599 degrees F. Water boils at 212 degrees F.
OVERKILL is what Diablo Canyon does every second of every day and unfortunately will continue to do, even when it is closed. A horrible legacy. Diablo Canyon needs to close now. Maybe something will have a chance to survive.
New and significant information:
Page 3-123 While Diablo Canyon continues to operate, public access to Intake Cove, Diablo Cove, and 8
other nearshore marine areas will remain prohibited. Therefore, LR would preserve existing 9
high-quality nearshore marine habitats within the action area, which would result in beneficial 10 impacts on the southern sea otter.
This is such BS! Swimming in radioactivity and eating radioactive food is not a high-quality nearshore marine habitat.
New and significant information:
Conclusion for the Southern Sea Otter All potential effects on the southern sea otter resulting from the proposed action would be 13 insignificant or discountable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may 14 affect but is not likely to adversely affect the southern sea otter. The NRC staff will seek FWS 15 concurrence with this determination following the issuance of this draft SEIS.
Diablo Canyon has adversely affected the sea otter since it was opened. Does the FWS know you dump radionuclides into the water or did you forget to tell them? The proposed action will continue to expose the sea otter to gamma, beta and alpha radionuclides INSIDE and outside of their bodies. THATS SIGNIFICANT.
Page 3-123 3.8.4.2 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats Under 17 National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction Table 3-16 Effect Determinations for Federally Listed Species Under National Marine 1
Fisheries Service Jurisdiction for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 2
License Renewal Once again, no mention of radioactivity.
New and significant information:
Page 3-127 3.8.4.2.1 Black Abalone 1
In Section 3.8.1.3 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that the black abalone is a resident 2
within the action area. Black abalone have been present within Diablo Cove since at least the 3
late 1980s and continue to reside there. Individuals have also been observed on the outside of 4
the breakwaters of Intake Cove.
Researchers postulated that the large decline by over 50 percent between the 1981-82 and the 32 1985-86 surveys was due to the foraging activities of sea otters or other unknown causes.
33 Tenera (1988-TN10247) concluded that the reductions were probably not related to power plant 34 operation, since elevated temperatures would be expected to also affect the smaller (younger) 35 abalone, which are generally more thermally sensitive than adults whereas sea otters and other
36 predators generally select for larger individuals. Additionally, the timeline of the decline did not 37 match the operational period.
1981 to 1982 would have matched the construction period. What did you throw in the water? Tenera (1988-TN10247) concluded that the reductions were probably not related to power plant operation but what about power plant construction?
During subsequent thermal studies at Diablo Canyon, researchers observed mortality of black 33 (Haliotis cracherodii) and red (H. rufescens) abalone due to withering syndrome. This condition 34 was first observed in California in the southern California Channel Islands in 1986 and first 35 observed in black abalone in Diablo Cove in spring 1988. Mortalities from the disease eventually 36 resulted in an approximately 90 percent population decline in black abalone in Diablo Cove.
37 Although recruitment contributed to increases in the Diablo Cove population in 1991 and 1992, 38 abundances outside Diablo Cove also began decreasing during this same period. By 1994, 39 black abalone populations along a shoreline distance of 7.9 mi (12.7 km) had significantly 40 declined from withering syndrome (PG&E 2023-TN9822).
41 Diablo Canyons thermal effluent is not expected to cause black abalone mortalities.
What about the radionuclides in the thermal effluent causing withering syndrome? Diablo Canyons RADIOACTiVE thermal effluent IS causing AND HAS caused black abalone mortalities. Tenera must also not be aware there are radionuclides in the water expelled from Diablo Canyon, or if they are, they did not take that into consideration. Didnt you tell them?
New and significant information:
Page 3-128 Conclusion for the Black Abalone 15 All potential effects on the black abalone resulting from the proposed action would be 16 discountable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may affect but is not 17 likely to adversely affect the black abalone. The NRC staff will seek NMFS concurrence with this 18 determination following the issuance of this draft SEIS.
So youre willing to kill all the black abalone just to boil water?
Just like you killed the sunflower sea star:
Page 3-106 In the 1980s, researchers collected sunflower sea stars at multiple intertidal sampling stations within the action area during pre-and post-operational surveys associated with CWA Section 316(a) demonstrations. However, the species was not particularly abundant and averaged about one sea star per station (Tenera 1988-TN10247). The species is now considered functionally extinct in California waters since sea star wasting disease caused a precipitous population decline roughly a decade ago (UCSC 2024-TN10613; Humboldt 2024-TN10614).
New and significant information:
Page 3-129 With respect to PCE 4, the proposed action would have no effect on salinity, 27 pH, or other chemical characteristics necessary for normal settlement, growth, behavior, or 28 viability of black abalone. The principal water quality parameter of concern is temperature.
Radioactivity affects all the above and RADIOACTIVITY IS THE ACTUAL PARAMETER OF CONCERN THAT YOU REPEATEDLY DO NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
Page 3-130 3.8.4.2.3 Gray Whale, Western North Pacific DPS, and Humpback Whale, Central American 7
DPS and Mexico DPS Whales may pass through nearshore areas of the Pacific Ocean 14 that are thermally influenced by Diablo Canyons thermal plume. However, this is a relatively 15 small area that is primarily detectable between 0.5 and 1 mi (0.8 and 1.6 km) offshore. Whales 16 migrating through the area or using nearshore areas of the action area could experience 17 elevated water temperatures. However, individuals could avoid these areas and would be 18 unlikely to be measurably affected by the small increase in nearshore ocean temperatures. In 19 2006, the NMFS evaluated the impacts of Diablo Canyon operation in a biological opinion, 20 including thermal impacts, and determined that whales are not likely to be adversely affected by 21 Diablo Canyon operations (NMFS 2006-TN7502).
What about the gamma rays? What about the radionuclides in the thermal plume? What about the radionuclides in the food the whales eat? What about the Ni-63 and Fe-55 that
settles to the bottom of the ocean and the whales eat it? Does the NMFS not know about this? Didnt you tell them?
From Pages 3-107 to 3-109 Gray whales are frequently observed traveling alone or in small, mostly unstable groups, although large aggregations may be seen in feeding and breeding grounds. Like other baleen whales, long-term bonds between individuals are thought to be rare. Gray whales are primarily bottom feeders that consume a wide range of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates, such as amphipods. Gray whales suck sediment and food from the sea floor by rolling on their sides and swimming slowly along, filtering their food through coarse baleen plates on each side of their upper jaw. (NMFS 2024-TN10304)
Along the northern and central California coastline, humpback whales are common during their feeding season (summer and fall). Whales from the Central American DPS tend to be more frequently observed in the southern parts of the feeding grounds than the Mexico DPS whales. It is expected that almost all the Central American DPS whales feed in California and Oregon. Whales from the Mexico DPS also feed in Washington and Alaskan waters. Whales from the Hawaii DPS, which is unlisted under the ESA, have also been observed feeding in California waters; however, these whales primarily feed in Southeast Alaska, Northern British Columbia, northern Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea (86 FR 21082-TN10264)Humpback whales occur in the action area seasonally. The species has been regularly observed offshore of Diablo Canyon since 1987, and sightings are most common in later summer to early winter. In one instance, a humpback whale was observed feeding as close to the Diablo Canyon action area as the seaward side of Diablo Rock (1,640 ft [500 m] from the discharge)
(PG&E 2023-TN9822). From 2017 through 2020, Tenera conducted monthly to biweekly clifftop surveys of marine mammals at several locations within the action area. A total of seven humpback whales were observed over this time period (PG&E 2024-TN10611).
Page 3-130 Conclusion for the Gray Whale 25 All potential effects on the gray whale resulting from the proposed action would be insignificant.
26 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to 27 adversely affect the Western North Pacific DPS of the gray whale. The NRC staff will seek 28 NMFS concurrence with this determination following the issuance of this draft SEIS.
29 Conclusion for the Humpback Whale 30 All potential effects on the humpback whale resulting from the proposed action would be 31 insignificant. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may affect but is not 32 likely to adversely affect the Central American DPS and Mexico DPS of the humpback whale.
33
The NRC staff will seek NMFS concurrence with this determination following the issuance of this 34 draft SEIS.
Diablo Canyon and the NRC are not interested in protecting the whales, thats my conclusion.
Pages 3-130 to 3-131 With respect to thermal impacts, in Section 3.7.5.2, the NRC staff concludes that 7
biological changes from Diablo Canyons thermal effluent have stabilized and that ecologically 8
significant changes are primarily limited to Diablo Cove.
9 At least you admit that the (RADIOACTIVE) thermal changes are primarily limited to Diablo Cove. Thats an admission that they are also elsewhere, like Intake Cove and west of Morro Bay State Park. If you continue with re-licensing, then you will be ADDING more biological changes, guaranteed, into the system, which is not stabilization.
Radionuclides are not stable by definition and continue to decay into their daughter products, emitting heat as well as alpha, beta, and gamma rays.
New and significant information:
Page 3-131 Conclusion for the Humpback Whale Critical Habitat 15 All potential effects on the one PBF of humpback whale critical habitat resulting from the 16 proposed action would be insignificant. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed 17 action may affect but is not likely to destroy or adversely modify California Central Coast critical 18 habitat Unit 17 of the humpback whale. The NRC staff will seek NMFS concurrence with this 19 determination following the issuance of this draft SEIS.
20 29,173.408 curies that Diablo Canyon Unit I and 2 has potentially dumped into the Diablo Cove. (I admit I do not have the actual stats at this time but you do).
Over the period from 2018 to 2021, no Diablo Canyon-related radionuclides were detected at any of the sample locations (PG&E 2023-TN9822)
WHERE DID THEY ALL GO?
Page 3-108 Humpback whales consume a diverse diet of small schooling fish and krill. Known prey organisms include species representing Clupea (herring), Scomber (mackerel),
Ammodytes (sand lance), Sardinops (sardine), Engraulis (anchovy), Mallotus (capelin),
and krill such as Euphausia, Thysanoessa, and Meganyctiphanes. Humpback whales also exhibit flexible feeding strategies, sometimes foraging alone and sometimes
cooperatively. During the winter, humpback whales subsist on stored fat and likely feed little or not at all (80 FR 22304-TN10265).
Where do all the radionuclides go? INTO THE FOOD CHAIN. Into the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
3.8.4.2.5 Green, Leatherback, Loggerhead, and Pacific Olive Ridley Sea Turtles The NMFSs (2006-TN7502) 2006 biological opinion also considers the impacts of thermal 22 effluent discharges and chlorine use on sea turtles. These impacts would remain the same 23 during the proposed Diablo Canyon LR term, and the NMFSs discussion of these impacts in the 24 biological opinion is incorporated here by reference. These impacts would result in insignificant 25 or discountable impacts on sea turtles in the action area.
Gamma rays? Beta rays? Ingested alpha, gamma and beta in their food? Was that discussed?
Page 1-333 Conclusion for the Green Sea Turtle, East Pacific DPS 27 The NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the 28 East Pacific DPS of the green sea turtle. The continued operation of Diablo Canyon would result 29 in occasional entrainment of green sea turtles into the cooling water intake structure. While most 30 individuals would likely survive entrainment and be released back to the ocean unharmed, some 31 individuals could experience injury or mortality. All other effects to this species associated with 32 the proposed action would be insignificant or discountable. The NRC staff will engage in formal 33 consultation with the NMFS regarding this determination following the issuance of this draft 34 SEIS.
Please make sure you discuss the radioactivity that is present in Diablo Cove, in Intake Cove and now, since the dredging, the radioactivity that is west of Morro Bay State Park.
Please discuss how the continued operation of Diablo Canyon will only increase the amount of radionuclides in our environment and subject all who are near (subjected to gamma and beta emissions) or ingest the gamma, beta and alpha emitting particles to ill health, mutation and death, inclusive of those caught in entrainment and how released back to the ocean unharmed is a false statement you keep repeating in this EIS. Please discuss the importance of bio-accumulation of radioactivity in the food chain. Please
discuss the importance of INTERNAL emitters once radioactive food, water, and air has entered the living being and living plants. Please discuss how the nuclear industry has polluted this planet. Please discuss how the oceans are a closed loop system and how when you are constantly heating a closed loop system that the water just gets hotter and hotter, melting the Arctic and Antarctic. Discuss how you have no temperature caps on how high you can heat the water as it is all based on an intake temperature, that has no cap and only increases with every second of discharge into Diablo Cove. Please discuss how your American GE Mark 1 nuclear power plants blew up at FUKUSHIMA, altering the jet stream, melting the Arctic ice and are continuously leaking radionuclides into the Pacific. Please discuss how MOX fuel landed in Seattle, on the Arctic ice and other areas and how the American radiation monitors were turned off so no one would know the extent of the radiation plume (which went world-wide). Discuss how the acceptable doses from radiation were increased in America to cover food and water so we could keep importing radioactive products from Japan and continue to eat the radioactive products produced on contaminated soil here in America. Please discuss how acceptable doses of radiation are based on Men, when women and especially children, infants and fetuses are the most vulnerable. And please discuss how Diablo Canyon only increases the background radiation that all of us have to TRY to live with, and how many are failing to do so. And please discuss Chernobyl Heart which is now Fukushima Heart, but covered up, that so many of our kids have dropped dead from.
Please discuss that all of this destruction of our planet is just so you can boil water at 212 degrees F to produce steam that turns a turbine. And please discuss how THAT is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY as there are other ways to produce electricity that are CARBON NEGATIVE and NOT LETHAL to our planet.
Biological Damage From Low-Level Radiation Compiled and edited for Midcoast Health Research Group and the Maine Nuclear Referendum Committee by Francene (Silsbee) McClintock, P.T., Maria Holt, R.N., and Elisabeth King.
It is becoming generally recognized that we are living in an age of truth decay, distortion and suppression of fact. This leaves us vulnerable - because ignorant - in personal search for health, and ineffective in service to the country.
Independent Citizens Research Foundation, Inc.
Whether radiation penetrates us from the outside (gamma and beta) or is ingested via air, water, milk or other foods (gamma plus beta and alpha), it harms us at the molecular level. (1,2)
This molecular damage causes imbalances that have vast ramifications. (1) The probability of developing a cancer or other harmful effect is simply a matter of chance. (2) It takes only one cell damaged by radiation to start the process. (3)
Each electron emitted by a radioactive nucleus of Iodine 131 or other beta emitter possesses a few million electron-volts of energy, sufficient to disrupt millions of organic molecules in living cells. As a result, radioactive isotopes that concentrate in specific organs are millions of times more dangerous per unit mass than ordinary chemical toxins.
Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, Ph.D.
Free Radical Damage
In 1972, Dr. Abram Petkau discovered that very low doses of radiation can unzip or dissolve cell membranes. This unzipping is performed by highly reactive free radical molecules that are formed when dissolved oxygen captures an electron liberated by the absorbed radiation. These free radicals attach themselves to the phospholipid cell membrane, where an oxidative chain reaction ensues. This destroys the integrity of the cell and the cell function. The more prolonged the dose of radiation, the smaller the total dose required to break the cell membrane (1, 4, 5, 17)
Free radicals can combine with and deactivate one another. Since increased doses of radiation produce a greater population of free radicals with a consequently greater probability of mutual deactivation, there is a greater probability of cell damage at lower radiation doses. (4, 6, 7)
Short, intense doses of radiation usually kill a cell outright or alter the DNA (causing mutation).(2) Low, prolonged doses, on the other hand, indirectly harm cells by increasing exposure to free radicals which damage cell membranes.(1, 4, 8) An individuals risk of contracting a cancer during his or her lifetime increases with each exposure. (9, 17)
Every dose is an overdose.
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate Cancers:
Radiation can cause cancers of the bone, digestive tract, brain, lung, thyroid, breast, stomach, central nervous system, lymph system, blood or skin. (1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
The radiation related leukemias are the acute myeoblastic, acute lymphoblastic, and chronic myelocytic forms. (8)
Historically, early leukemias take about four years to develop, whereas other cancers take longer, up to forty years for a solid tumor or lung cancer. (3) Radiation appears to be not only a cancer instigator but also a cancer promoter. (8,10)
Effects of Internal Emitters Strontium-90 can be ingested in milk, leafy green vegetables, and other supposedly health-giving foods. It is taken up by the body in the same manner as calcium, which it chemically resembles. (1, 2, 9, 11, 14) Deposited in the bones in the same manner as calcium, it is situated close to the bone marrow in which blood cells are formed. By impairing the action of white blood cells, radiation can damage the immune response system, opening the way to a wide spectrum of diseases and infections (1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11), especially in vulnerable populations such as the invalid and elderly. (11, 15, 17) Damage to the immune system may linger for the duration of a lifetime, resulting in chronic poor health. (4, 8)
Iodine-131 is ingested in milk, which is heavily consumed by expectant and nursing mothers, infants, and young children. The iodine-131 settles in the thyroid, disrupting the production of growth hormone, which can lead to spontaneous abortion, low birth-weight babies, hyaline membrane disease and generally poor growth and development. (4, 11)
Demographic Evidence:
In 1970, Dr. Alice Stewart completed a study of over 16,000,000 children born in England and Wales, which showed that fetuses and infants are 1000 times and 100 times, respectively, more sensitive to radiation than adults. (3, 4, 11)
In the three years since the Chernobyl accident, Downs Syndrome has doubled in West Germany (15) and in the Ukraine, the cancer rate in the area immediately around the plant has doubled and calves have been born without heads, limbs, eyes or ribs. Pigs have been born google eyed or with deformed skulls. (8, 10)
There were at least 40,000 more deaths than normal in the U.S. in the eight months after the arrival of the Chernobyl cloud. There was also a highly significant drop in the live births, especially on the west coast and in New England, where rainfall brought down the fallout which
then concentrated in the milk. This concentration led to miscarriages and spontaneous abortions which caused the birth rate to plummet. What we had was a four-month long radiation epidemic.
Dr. Ernest J Sternglass, Ph.D.
Impacts From DOE and Military Activities and Facilities:
Mental retardation, decreased intellectual ability, birth defects, hypothyroidism, abnormal blood clotting, and premature aging have all been associated with radiation exposure, as have other diseases such as arthritis, heart disease, and diabetes. (1, 2, 3, 8) Impaired intellectual functioning as a result of radiation exposure is suggested by a study of SAT scores of college applicants from the area downwind of the Nevada above-ground test. (4, 15) 20,000 children may have been affected by releases in the late 1940s from the Hanford site in Washington. (8) 24 out of the 28 families who settled near the Hanford site in 1957 have been affected by cancer, serious birth defects, thyroid problems and early deaths. (8) Similar effects have been noted around the weapons plants at Rocky Flats. Fabricators of nuclear warheads suffer excess deaths from cancer of the brain, lungs, central nervous system and lymphatic system.
(3, 14) Their brain tumor deaths are nearly five times as high as are expected for the general public.
Uranium processing workers suffer from lung and brain cancers, respiratory diseases, and a 36% excess rate of digestive tract cancer. (3) The DOE is now candidly admitting for the first time that they have deliberately, knowingly been releasing toxic radioactivity into peoples backyards, essentially creating a gigantic experiment. They have been killing the very people they are supposed to protect. (8)
How can we feel secure when we are the victims of deliberate government experiments?
Millie Smith, Seattle Post intelligence 10/22/1988 Impacts From Civilian Power Reactors:
Radioactivity is routinely released from nuclear power plants into our air and water (2, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17) Because many radioisotopes persist for many years, they are building up in our food chain and elsewhere in the environment. (1, 12, 14) This is definitely a health risk. (12, 14)
A 1987 study of people living near nuclear power plants in England and Wales showed that there were twice as many deaths as expected in this population from leukemia, Hodgkins disease and multiple myeloma. (12) in some areas incidence of leukemia alone was twice as high as expected. (12, 14)
In the ongoing age of rampant laissez-faire, when will the stack of bodies in the morgue be high enough and specifically defined enough to warrant action?
Harvey Wasserman A 1987 study in the US by dr. Sidney Cobb showed similar elevations in cancer deaths in the population living near the Pilgrim plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts. (12, 13) Dr. Cobb has surmised that airborne radiation may be trapped in coastal fogs and carried back and forth over coastal communities in on-shore, off-shore wind cycles. (13) Two separate studies in England and the US have shown high mortalities in coastal areas near nuclear facilities. (12, 13,
- 15)
In a study of the area surrounding the Maine Yankee reactor in Wiscasset, Maine, Dr Theodore Hauschka found a significant rise in radiation-related leukemias in those rural communities in comparison with the rest of the State of Maine, which before Maine yankee went on-line in1972, had one of the lowest rates for leukemia in the 48 contiguous states. (8,
- 17)
The only way to avoid further pollution with man-made radioisotopes is to stop the use of nuclear fission both for weaponry and for the production of electricity.
Maria Holt and Elisabeth King, Citizen monitors of Maine Yankee The armament consortium Theyre selling us plutonium Now you can make your own H-bomb Right in the kitchen with your Mom The nuclear power that costs you more Than anything youve known before The half-wits answer to a need For cancer, death, destruction, greed Weve got to save the world Someones children, they may need it So far weve seen The big business of extinction bleed it Weve got to save the world.
George Harrison References 1.
Shannon, Sara Diet for the Atomic Age, Avery Book Publishing Group, Inc, New Jersey, (1987)
- 2. Deadly Defense, Military Radioactive Waste Landfills, A Citizens Guide By The Radioactive Waste Campaign
- 3. Taylor, Lynda, the workbook Feature, The Health Effects of Radiation - The Controversy Continues, The Workbook, vol X No.4, (Oct - Dec 1985)
- 4. De Sante, David F. Implications of Low Level Radiation on the Health of Birds and Humans Institute for Bird Populations, P.O. Box 554, Inverness, CA 94937
- 5. Sternglass, Ernest J. Secret Fallout: Low Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three Mile Island, New York, McGraw Hill, (1981)
- 6. Jacobs, Brian W. The Politics of Radiation: When Public Health and the Nuclear Industry Collide, Greenpeace, July/Aug 1985
- 7. Jacobs, Brian The NRCs Prescription: Increasing Our Radiation Dose, The Nation, (September 6, 1986)
- 8. Independent Citizens Research Foundation, Inc., Confronting Our Nuclear Age, Ardsley, NY
- 9. Goffman, John W M.D., PhD. Radiation and Human Health: A Comprehensive Investigation of the Evidence Relating Low-Level Radiation to Cancer and Other Diseases, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, (1981)
10 Chernobyl Cancer Rate Doubles: Authorities Badly Underestimate Health Problems, Portland Press Herald, Portland, ME (Feb 18, 1989)
- 11. Sternglass, Ernest J. Ph.D. The Implications of Chernobyl for Human Health, International Journal of Biosocial Research, Vol 8 (1): 7-36, (1986)
- 12. Tye, Larry, Study Reveals More Cancer Deaths Near Nuclear Power Plants, Boston Globe, May 18, 1987
- 13. Fredenthal, Stacey Mapping Her Case Against Power Plant, Boston Globe August 18, 1989
- 14. Shutdown: Nuclear Power On Trial, The Book Publishing Company, Summertown, Tennessee 38483
- 15. Wasserman, Harvey, Chernobyls American Fallout, ETA Magazine, June 1989
- 16. State of Maine, 1986-1988 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Activity Report
- 17. Maine Low-Level Waste Authority, Public Hearing, December 14, 1987 Conclusion for the Green Sea Turtle, East Pacific DPS Conclusion for the Leatherback Sea Turtle Conclusion for the Loggerhead Sea Turtle, North Pacific DPS Conclusion for the Pacific Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Fukushima contamination is enough for these species to deal with. You dont need to ADD ON to their man-made suffering/misery.
3.8.4.3 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat Page 3-136 3.8.4.3.2 Physical Alteration of Habitat Through Heated Effluent Discharges 10 Diablo Canyon continuously discharges heated effluent to the Pacific Ocean via Diablo Cove 11 following its use for cooling and other auxiliary functions at the plant. Because discharges are of 12 higher temperatures than the ambient ocean water, discharges represent a physical alteration to 13 fish habitat. Section 3.7.5.2 of this SEIS describes the characteristics of the thermal plume, 14 which varies with tides. Regardless of tides, temperature disperses quickly upon discharge such 15 that waters outside of Diablo Cove are generally not affected. Additionally, the deeper portions 16 of Diablo Cove (below approximately 26 ft [8 m] MLLW) are typically below the main influence of 17 the thermal plume and show little or no increase in temperature.
temperature disperses quickly upon discharge. Not true. The heated effluent discharges are radioactive and radionuclides give off heat as they disintegrate, many of them forever.
Page 3-136 3.8.4.3.3 Chemical Alteration of Habitat Through Radionuclides and Other Contaminants in 28 Heated Effluent Discharges With respect to the potential impacts of radiological contaminants on fish habitat, the primary 1
radionuclide of concern is tritium. During operation, Diablo Canyon may discharge tritium 2
through one of two pathways: (1) as liquid through effluent releases to the Pacific Ocean or 3
(2) as gas through the air. PG&E has not detected tritium or any other radionuclides attributable 4
to Diablo Canyon in aquatic exposure pathway samples based on the NRC staffs review of 5
annual reports on PG&Es radiological environmental monitoring program from 2019-2023 6
(PG&E 2020-TN10093, PG&E 2021-TN10094, PG&E 2022-TN10095, PG&E 2023-TN10096, 7
PG&E 2024-TN10097). These samples include offshore ocean sediment from Diablo Cove and 8
Rattlesnake Canyon; marine flora, including kelp and intertidal algae; and fish and invertebrates, 9
including rockfish, perch, and mussels. Thus, the quality of fish habitat in the area is extremely 10 unlikely to be affected by radiological contamination. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that 11 radionuclide discharges would result in no more than minimal adverse effects on EFH in the 12 affected area.
TRITIUM: 12.32 years 1/2 life. 123.2 to 246.4+ years hazardous life. Maine Yankee released 1,053.8 curies of Tritium into Montsweag Bay over the course of five years (1986,1987,1989, 1990, 1991). Since I dont have Diablo Canyons tritium releases I will use Maine Yankees average. (1,053.8 times 8 equals 40 years) times 2 reactors at Diablo Canyon. That equals 16,860.8 curies of liquid tritium over the course of Diablo Canyons history. And that does not include the gaseous releases or the leaked releases that are not reported by either Maine Yankee or Diablo Canyon. I wonder where almost 17,000 curies of tritium went when it should be detectable for up to 246.4 years? Maine Yankees tritium is still on the planet too. Maybe PG&E needs to test somewhere else. Or check their equipment? Maybe their radiation detector is turned off like they were after Fukushima blew-up.
There are other radionuclides of concern:
Radionuclides dumped into the water by Maine Yankee (excludes high-level waste);
1986 releases into the water: SR-89 0.000073 curies, SR-90 0.000133 curies, CS-134 0.0000333 curies, CS-137 0.00176 curies, I-131 0.229 curies, Co-58 0.000007 curies, Co-60 0.0136 curies, Cr-51 0.000041 curies, Mo-49 0.00111 curies, Tc-99 0.000895 curies, I-133 0.0218 curies, Cs-136 0.000153 curies, Fe-55 0.0223 curies, Ag-110m 0.00104 curies, Nb-97 0.00288 curies, SB-124 0.000153 curies, Sb-125 0.00262 curies, I-135 0.000976 curies, entrained gases: Xe-133 1.14 curies, Xe-135 0.261 curies, Xe-133m 0.00817, Xe-131m 0.00323 curies, Xe-135m 0.00123 curies, Kr-85 0.000086 curies, Tritium (H-3): 349 curies Total Activity released to water: 350.7 curies 1987 releases into water: nuclides: Sr-89 0.00299 curies, Sr-90 0.00327 curies, Cs-134 0.00922 curies, Cs-137 0.0388 curies, I-131 0.0859 curies, Co-58 0.148 curies, Co-60 0.163 curies, Mn-54 0.00344 curies, Cr-51 0.0134 curies, Zr-Nb95 0.00366 curies, Mo-99 0.00035 curies, Tr-99m 0.00043 curies, Ba/La-140 0.0057 curies, Ce-141 0.00045 curies, Fe-55 0.251 curies, Ag 110m 0.0228 curies, co-57 0.000288 curies, Sb-122 0.000076 curies, Xe-131m 0.0136 curies, Sb-124 0.0874 curies, Sb-125 0.0324 curies, I132 0.000021 curies, I-133 0.00371 curies, I-135 0.000197 curies, Sn-133 0.000378 curies, Xe-133 0.015 curies, Ru-103 0.00179 curies, Ce-139 0.000035 curies, Np-239 0.00004 curies, Sr-91 0.00008 curies, Y-91m 0.00009 curies, Y-92 0.000107 curies, entrained gases: Kr-85 0.00013 curies, Xe-133 1.47 curies, Xe-135 0.00787 curies, Xe135m 0.00005 curies, Tritium (H-3) 117.71 curies Total Activity released to water: 120.095672 curies 1988 (Im unable to locate this report) 1989 releases into water: nuclides: Antimony-124 0.0344 curies, Antimony-125 0.0249 curies, Barium/La-140 0.000826 curies, Cerium-144 0.00000676 curies, Cesium-134 0.00396 curies, Cesium-137 0.0160 curies, Chromium-51 0.00076 curies, Cobalt-57 0.0000425 curies, cobalt-58 0.0266 curies, cobalt-60 0.0347 curies, Iodine-131 0.005 curies, iodine-133 0.00115 curies, Iodine-135 0.0000221 curies, Iron-55 0.0218 curies, Manganese-54 0.00185 curies, Molybdenum-99 0.000169 curies, Ruthenium-103 0.000000932 curies, Silver-110m 0.00769 curies, Strontium-89 0.000708 curies, Strontium-91 0.0000513 curies, Technetium-99m 0.000415 curies, Tellurium-132 0.000000729 curies, Tellurium-133m 0.00000809 curies, Tin-113 0.0000988 curies, Yttrium-91m 0.0000578 curies, Zinc-65 0.0000000939 curies, Zirconium/Nb-95 0.0000487 curies, Barium-139 0.0000487 curies, Ianthium-142 0.00000177 curies, Tellurium-134 0.00174 curies, entrained gases: Xenon-133 0.189 curies, Xenon-135 0.00169 curies, Xenon-131m 0.000627 curies, Xenon-133m 0.00223 curies, Krypton-87 0.0000104 curies, Krypton-85m 0.00000211 curies, Krypton-88 0.00000166 curies, Tritium (H-3) 422 curies Total Activity released to water: 422.376 curies 1990 releases into water: nuclides: Antimony-122 0.000374 curies, Antimony-124 0.0442 curies, Antimony-125 0.0257 curies, Barium/Lanth-140 0.000659 curies, Cerium-141 0.0000552 curies, Cerium-144 0.000000246 curies, Cesium-134 0.00203 curies, Cesium-137 0.0163 curies, Chromium-51 0.00479 curies, Cobalt-57 0.0000328 curies, Cobalt-58 0.0223 curies, Cobalt -60 0.0121 curies, Iodine-131 0.0279 curies, Iodine-132 0.0000165 curies, Iodine-133 0.00199 curies, Iron-55 0.0197 curies, Manganese-54 0.000181 curies, Mercury-203 0.0000911 curies, Ruthenium -103 0.000000944 curies, Silver-110m 0.00448 curies, Strontium-89 0.00194 curies, Technetium-99m 0.00123 curies, Tin-113 0.0000271 curies, Zinc-65 0.00000266 curies, Zirconium/Nb-95 0.00032 curies, Lanthium-142 0.000000231 curies, Tellurium-131 0.000000917 curies, Cadmium-109 0.00025 curies, (Unidentified) 0.0000258 curies. Entrained gases: Xenon-133 4.5 curies, Xenon-135 0.00474 curies, Xenon-131m 0.0914 curies, Xenon-133m 0.0208 curies, Xenon-135m 0.0000867 curies,
Krypton-87 0.0000258 curies, Krypton-85m 0.00018 curies, Krypton-88 0.000099 curies, Krypton-85 0.0071 curies, Tritium (H3): 243 curies Total activity released to water: 248 curies 1991 releases into water: nuclides: SR-89 0.004154 curies, CS-134 0.00213 curies, Cs-137 0.0139 curies, I-131 0.243 curiesCO-58 0.0169 curies, Co-60 0.026 curies, Fe-59 0.000095 curies, Mn-54 0.000135 curies, Cr-51 0.00327 curies, Zr/Nb-95 0.000232 curies, Mo-99 0.000215 curies, Tc-99m 0.000634 curies, Ba/La-140 0.0012 curies, Ce-141 0.0000815 curies, Fe-55 0.0161 curies, SB-124. 0.0386 Curies, Sb-125 0.041 curies, Ag-110m 0.00214 curies, Ru-103 0.0000464 curies, Sn-113 0.000178 curies, Np-239 0.000190 curies, Sr-85 0.000332 curies, I-133 0.00184 curies, Ba-133 0.0000407 curies, I-135 0.000246 curies, Sb-122 0.0000553 curies, Te-132 0.000012 curies, Ce-144 0.0000136 curies, Co-57 0.00000937 curies, Na-24 0.00000459 curies, La-141 0.0000967 curies, Entrained gases: Xe-133 1.986 curies, Xe-135 0.00367 curies, Xe-131m 0.0516 curies, Xe-133m 0.0083 curies, Xe-135m 0.00013 curies, Kr-85m 0.000298 curies, Tritium (H3): 388.8 curies Total activity released to water: 390.892 curies The problem is the core zirconium alloy fuel rods get pin-prick holes in them and they leak ALL (over 200) the man-made radionuclides. All the man-made radionuclides can leak into the cooling water pipes and that, in turn, can leak into the ocean (not reported).
OR you can just have an accident like Fukushima where 3 plants exploded, three cores melted down and a spent fuel pool exploded. And now all the man-made radionuclides are in our atmosphere AND in our water AND left on site AND draining into the Pacific Ocean. All those man-made radionuclides are IN US. Radionuclides were found in the car filters in Seattle. That means THEY ARE IN PEOPLES LUNGS. On all those kids shoes, inside all those runners lungs, who thought they were participating in a healthy activity.
The nuclear industrys cover-up of this is appalling.
Those man-made radionuclides include Pu-241: 14.4 years 1/2 life (144 to 288+ years hazardous life) beta.
Decays to Americium-241: 432 year 1/2 life (4,320 years to 8,640+ years hazardous life)
Alpha, gamma.
Decays to Neptunium-237: 2.14 million years 1/2 life (21.4 million years to 42.8+ million years hazardous life) alpha.
All of the below listed radionuclides are present in low-level waste:
RADIONUCLIDE HALF-LIFE APPROXIMATE HAZARDOUS LIFE Iodine-129 15,900,000 years 318,000,000 years Technetium-99 213,000 years 4,260,000 years Plutonium-239 24,000 years 480,000 years Carbon-14 5,730 years 114,600 years Americium-241 432 years 8,640 years Cesium-137 30.17 years 603.4 years Strontium-90 29 years 580 years Tritium (H-3) 12.33 years 246.60 years Cobalt-60 5.27 years 105.4 years Trash hours-12 years days to 240 years
And how much blew up? 7,000 (spent fuel pool) + 600 (MOX fuel reactor) + 600 (uranium)
+ 600 (Uranium) tons of uranium/plutonium equals 8,800 tons of uranium/plutonium and all the other man-made radionuclides. HOW MANY CURIES IS THAT?
1 microgram of plutonium is lethal.
The kids are swimming in all those curies. The kids are surfing in all those curies. The fish are swimming and eating in all those curies. And we are consuming the fish. Do you see a problem here? And this is not even discussing all the curies released into the air and on land at LLRW nuclear dump sites OR THE HIGH LEVEL WASTE. All to boil water at 212 degrees F, create steam and turn a turbine. Has the United States gone mad?
It is not the cubic feet that poses a danger, but rather the curies. And we have definitely surpassed our limit in curies. Nuclear energy is not clean or green, its a radioactive cancer factory. The nuclear industry needs to be closed.
We need curie limitation. Enough curies have already been produced. Close down the nuclear industry.
How many curies has man-kind produced?
7,000 tons of plutonium in a common fuel pool at Fukushima Daichi 600 tons of uranium or plutonium in each reactor plus dry cask storage 600 tons multiplied by 50 reactors, thats 30,000 tons minimum of uranium/plutonium in Japan alone. How many curies is that?
Then add all the spent fuel pools, dry cask storage, and 500-600 tons of uranium/plutonium per reactor and multiply by all the reactors world-wide (675 or so). Thats just the uranium/
plutonium high-level waste. Then there are all the daughter-isotopes created as it all decays.
Then add all the low-level waste released to the air, water and land (all leaking, not containerized) and thats why everything is dead or dying. And then add all the heat affecting our climate, the heat given off from radioactive decay, the heat added to our water world-wide and melting the ice. The heat added to our atmosphere. All just to produce steam to turn a turbine and make electricity. Its insanity. And then there is all the military waste on top of this.
When is it going to stop?
To re-cap what one reactor produced in 5 years, NOT COUNTING THE HIGH LEVEL WASTE:
Radioactive Curies dumped into the air and water - State of Maine Low-Level Radioactive Waste Activity Reports 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant. (Excludes high level waste):
1986: 1,075.1 curies released to the air 350.7 curies released to the water 1987: 783.773 curies released to the air 120.096 curies released to water 1988: 78.37 curies released to the air 291.283 curies released to water 1989: 23.5 curies released to the air 422.367 curies released to water 1990: 765 curies released to the air
248 curies released to the water 1991: 1,136.417 curies released to the air 390.892 curies released into the water Radioactive Curies dumped and covered in the land (South Carolina and Washington)
State of Maine Low-Level Radioactive Waste Reports 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant (excludes high-level waste):
1986: 161.348 curies. Shipped, 250 estimate awaiting shipment 1987: 225.112 curies shipped, 112 curies estimate awaiting shipment 1988: 446.9964334 curies shipped, 14.257838 curies waiting shipment, 4.29 curies to a broker 1989: 259.31 curies shipped, 122 awaiting shipment, 7.94 curies to a broker 1990: 172.6 curies shipped, 1.462 curies awaiting shipment, 4.29 curies to a broker, mixed waste 0.0281 curies 1991: 345.355 curies shipped, 240 curies awaiting shipment, 0.969 curies to a broker, mixed waste 0.0281 curies Radionuclides dumped into the air by Maine Yankee (excludes high level waste) 1986 releases into air: Kr-85 16.3 curies, Xe-133 1,050 curies, Xe-135 1.56 curies, Xe-131m 1.12 curies, Xe-133m 0.0117 curies, I-131 0.00216 curies (I-131 0.00751 curies?) Co-60 0.000003 curies, Zr-97 0.00031 curies, Tritium (H-3) 6.05 curies Total Activity 1,075.1 curies 1987 releases into the air: Kr-85 5.188 curies, Kr-85m 0.000086 curies, Xe-133 755.8 curies, Xe-135 10.70 curies, Xe-133m 1.83 curies, Xe-131m 7.19 curies, I-131 0.00131 curies, I-133 0.00029 curies, Cs-134 0.00006 curies, Cs-137 0.000028 curies, Ru-103 0.00098 curies, Co-58 0.000004 curies, Co-60 0.000037 curies, Tritium (H-3) 3.062 curies Total Activity 783.77271 curies 1988: (Im unable to locate this report).
1989 releases into the air: Ar-41 0.054 curies, Kr-85 0.026 curies, Kr-87 0.027 curies, Kr-88 0.016 curies, Xe-131m 0.110 curies, Xe-133 16.1 curies, Xe-133m 0.179 curies, Xe-135 0.929 curies, Xe-135m 0.055 curies, Xe-138 0.025 curies, I-131 0.00015 curies, I-132 0.0001 curies I-133 0.0004 curies, I-134 0.000006 curies, I-135 0.0001 curies, Cs-137 0.000002 curies, Co-58 0.000008 curies, Co-60 0.000004 curies, Ru-103 0.000025 curies, Tritium (H-3) 5.95 curies Total Activity: 23.5 curies 1990 releases into the air: gases: Argon-41 0.0781, Krypton-85 0.15 curies, Krypton 85-m 0.462 curies, Krypton-87 0.199 curies, Krypton-86 0.255 curies, Xenon-131m 6.33 curies, Xenon-133 723 curies, Xenon 133m 5.42 curies, Xenon-135 10.5 curies, Xenon-135m 0.141 curies, Xenon-138 0.0807 curies, Iodines: Iodine-131 0.00326 curies, Iodine 132 0.00316 curies, Iodine 133 0.000565 curies, iodine-135 0.0000349 curies. Particulates: Antimony-125 0.00159 curies, Cadmium-109 0.00116 curies, Cesium-134 0.000304 curies, Cesium-137 0.000531, Cobalt-58 0.000561 curies, Cobalt-60 0.0107 curies, Manganese-54 0.0000354 curies, Niobium-95 0.000000326 curies, Silver-110m 0.0000307 curies, Chromium-51 0.000278 curies, Cerium-144 0.0000301 curies, Cobalt-57 0.0000114 curies, Tritium (H-3) 17.6 curies Total Activity: 765 curies
1991 releases into the air: gases: Kr-85 9.86 curies, Kr-85m 0.814 curies, Kr-87 0.0104 curies, Kr-88 0.0224 curies, Xe-133 1,087.85 curies, Xe-135 18.467 curies, Xe-135m 0.0089 curies, Xe-138 0.00241 curies, Xe-133m 2.856 curies, Ar-41 0.00203 curies, Xe-131m 7.378 curies, Tritium (H-3) 9.138 curies, Particulates: Sr-90 0.00000115 curies, Cs-134 0.00000898 curies, Cs-137 0.000126 curies, Co-58 0.0000173 curies, co-60 0.0000173 curies, Cd-109 0.000593 curies, Iodines: I-131 0.00646 curies, I-133 0.00426 curies Total Activity: 1,136.417 curies Radionuclides dumped into the water by Maine Yankee (excludes high-level waste);
1986 releases into the water: SR-89 0.000073 curies, SR-90 0.000133 curies, CS-134 0.0000333 curies, CS-137 0.00176 curies, I-131 0.229 curies, Co-58 0.000007 curies, Co-60 0.0136 curies, Cr-51 0.000041 curies, Mo-49 0.00111 curies, Tc-99 0.000895 curies, I-133 0.0218 curies, Cs-136 0.000153 curies, Fe-55 0.0223 curies, Ag-110m 0.00104 curies, Nb-97 0.00288 curies, SB-124 0.000153 curies, Sb-125 0.00262 curies, I-135 0.000976 curies, entrained gases: Xe-133 1.14 curies, Xe-135 0.261 curies, Xe-133m 0.00817, Xe-131m 0.00323 curies, Xe-135m 0.00123 curies, Kr-85 0.000086 curies, Tritium (H-3): 349 curies Total Activity released to water: 350.7 curies 1987 releases into water: nuclides: Sr-89 0.00299 curies, Sr-90 0.00327 curies, Cs-134 0.00922 curies, Cs-137 0.0388 curies, I-131 0.0859 curies, Co-58 0.148 curies, Co-60 0.163 curies, Mn-54 0.00344 curies, Cr-51 0.0134 curies, Zr-Nb95 0.00366 curies, Mo-99 0.00035 curies, Tr-99m 0.00043 curies, Ba/La-140 0.0057 curies, Ce-141 0.00045 curies, Fe-55 0.251 curies, Ag 110m 0.0228 curies, co-57 0.000288 curies, Sb-122 0.000076 curies, Xe-131m 0.0136 curies, Sb-124 0.0874 curies, Sb-125 0.0324 curies, I132 0.000021 curies, I-133 0.00371 curies, I-135 0.000197 curies, Sn-133 0.000378 curies, Xe-133 0.015 curies, Ru-103 0.00179 curies, Ce-139 0.000035 curies, Np-239 0.00004 curies, Sr-91 0.00008 curies, Y-91m 0.00009 curies, Y-92 0.000107 curies, entrained gases: Kr-85 0.00013 curies, Xe-133 1.47 curies, Xe-135 0.00787 curies, Xe135m 0.00005 curies, Tritium (H-3) 117.71 curies Total Activity released to water: 120.095672 curies 1988 (Im unable to locate this report) 1989 releases into water: nuclides: Antimony-124 0.0344 curies, Antimony-125 0.0249 curies, Barium/La-140 0.000826 curies, Cerium-144 0.00000676 curies, Cesium-134 0.00396 curies, Cesium-137 0.0160 curies, Chromium-51 0.00076 curies, Cobalt-57 0.0000425 curies, cobalt-58 0.0266 curies, cobalt-60 0.0347 curies, Iodine-131 0.005 curies, iodine-133 0.00115 curies, Iodine-135 0.0000221 curies, Iron-55 0.0218 curies, Manganese-54 0.00185 curies, Molybdenum-99 0.000169 curies, Ruthenium-103 0.000000932 curies, Silver-110m 0.00769 curies, Strontium-89 0.000708 curies, Strontium-91 0.0000513 curies, Technetium-99m 0.000415 curies, Tellurium-132 0.000000729 curies, Tellurium-133m 0.00000809 curies, Tin-113 0.0000988 curies, Yttrium-91m 0.0000578 curies, Zinc-65 0.0000000939 curies, Zirconium/Nb-95 0.0000487 curies, Barium-139 0.0000487 curies, Ianthium-142 0.00000177 curies, Tellurium-134 0.00174 curies, entrained gases: Xenon-133 0.189 curies, Xenon-135 0.00169 curies, Xenon-131m 0.000627 curies, Xenon-133m 0.00223 curies, Krypton-87 0.0000104 curies, Krypton-85m 0.00000211 curies, Krypton-88 0.00000166 curies, Tritium (H-3) 422 curies Total Activity released to water: 422.376 curies
1990 releases into water: nuclides: Antimony-122 0.000374 curies, Antimony-124 0.0442 curies, Antimony-125 0.0257 curies, Barium/Lanth-140 0.000659 curies, Cerium-141 0.0000552 curies, Cerium-144 0.000000246 curies, Cesium-134 0.00203 curies, Cesium-137 0.0163 curies, Chromium-51 0.00479 curies, Cobalt-57 0.0000328 curies, Cobalt-58 0.0223 curies, Cobalt -60 0.0121 curies, Iodine-131 0.0279 curies, Iodine-132 0.0000165 curies, Iodine-133 0.00199 curies, Iron-55 0.0197 curies, Manganese-54 0.000181 curies, Mercury-203 0.0000911 curies, Ruthenium -103 0.000000944 curies, Silver-110m 0.00448 curies, Strontium-89 0.00194 curies, Technetium-99m 0.00123 curies, Tin-113 0.0000271 curies, Zinc-65 0.00000266 curies, Zirconium/Nb-95 0.00032 curies, Lanthium-142 0.000000231 curies, Tellurium-131 0.000000917 curies, Cadmium-109 0.00025 curies, (Unidentified) 0.0000258 curies. Entrained gases: Xenon-133 4.5 curies, Xenon-135 0.00474 curies, Xenon-131m 0.0914 curies, Xenon-133m 0.0208 curies, Xenon-135m 0.0000867 curies, Krypton-87 0.0000258 curies, Krypton-85m 0.00018 curies, Krypton-88 0.000099 curies, Krypton-85 0.0071 curies, Tritium (H3): 243 curies Total activity released to water: 248 curies 1991 releases into water: nuclides: SR-89 0.004154 curies, CS-134 0.00213 curies, Cs-137 0.0139 curies, I-131 0.243 curiesCO-58 0.0169 curies, Co-60 0.026 curies, Fe-59 0.000095 curies, Mn-54 0.000135 curies, Cr-51 0.00327 curies, Zr/Nb-95 0.000232 curies, Mo-99 0.000215 curies, Tc-99m 0.000634 curies, Ba/La-140 0.0012 curies, Ce-141 0.0000815 curies, Fe-55 0.0161 curies, SB-124. 0.0386 Curies, Sb-125 0.041 curies, Ag-110m 0.00214 curies, Ru-103 0.0000464 curies, Sn-113 0.000178 curies, Np-239 0.000190 curies, Sr-85 0.000332 curies, I-133 0.00184 curies, Ba-133 0.0000407 curies, I-135 0.000246 curies, Sb-122 0.0000553 curies, Te-132 0.000012 curies, Ce-144 0.0000136 curies, Co-57 0.00000937 curies, Na-24 0.00000459 curies, La-141 0.0000967 curies, Entrained gases: Xe-133 1.986 curies, Xe-135 0.00367 curies, Xe-131m 0.0516 curies, Xe-133m 0.0083 curies, Xe-135m 0.00013 curies, Kr-85m 0.000298 curies, Tritium (H3): 388.8 curies Total activity released to water: 390.892 curies Radionuclides dumped in the land (South Carolina, Washington) from Maine Yankee (excludes high-level waste):
1986 shipped: compacted trash or solids and dry activated waste: Co-60 0.212 curies, Cs-137 0.053 curies, Ni-63 0.393 curies, Fe-55 0.404 curies, another shipment of compacted trash or solids and dry activated waste: Co-60 4.118 curies, Cs-137 3.824 curies, Ni-63 8.531 curies, Fe-55 8.531 curies, solidified evaporator bottom/concentrates: Co-60 0.807 curies, Fe-55 0.912 curies, Ni-63 1.544 curies, H-3 0.246 curies, Co-60 31.321 curies, Cs-137 44.360 curies, Fe-55 13.047 curies, Ni-63 43.054 curies.
Total shipped activity: 161.348 curies Another estimated 250 curies of compacted trash or solids or dry activated waste waiting to be shipped. Radionuclides not specified.
1987 shipped: compacted trash or solids: Co-60 0.18 curies, Cs-137 0.38 curies, Cs-134 0.11 curies, Ni-63 0.30 curies, Fe-55 0.34 curies, solidified ion exchange resins: Ni-63 34.9 curies, Co-60 21.4 curies, Fe-55 9.72 curies, Cs-137 8.82 curies, H-3 37.6 curies, dewatered ion exchange resins: Ni-63 46.79 curies, Co-60 29.79 curies, Cs-137 19.41 curies, Fe-55 11.572 curies, H-3 1.23 curies, Mn-54 1.47 curies Cs-134 1.10 curies Total shipped activity: 225.112 curies
Another estimated 112 curies of compacted trash or solids, solidified filter media, and dry activated waste waiting to be shipped. Radionuclides not specified.
1988: (Im unable to locate this report) 1989 shipped: compacted trash or solids: Co-60 71.1 curies, Fe-55 45.7 curies, Cs-137 41.9 curies, Cs-134 30.1 curies, Ni-63 27.9 curies, dewatered filter media: Co-58 17.1 curies, Cr-51 8.19 curies, Sb-125 2.9 curies, C-14 2.87 curies, Sb-124 2.75 curies, dewatered ion exchange resins: Mn-54 2.41 curies, Ce-144 1.74 curies, Zr-95 1.16 curies, Sr-90 0.8 curies, Ag-110m0.76 curies, solidified evaporator bottom/concentrates: Ce-141 0.66 curies, Pu-241 0.32 curies, Co-57 0.26 curies, Fe-59 0.13 curies, Tritium (H3) 0.09 curies, Tc-99 0.05 curies, Ni-59 0.03 curies, Nb-94 0.01 curies, (?Cm-242 curies?), Pu-239/240 0.005 curies, Pu-238 0.003 curies, Am-241 0.002 curies, I-129 0.001 curies Total shipped activity: 259.31 curies Another 122 curies of compacted trash or solids, ion exchange resins and dewatered filter media waiting for shipment. 7.94 curies sent to a broker. 0.000061 curies of mixed waste in barrels on site.
1990: shipped: dewatered filter media: Co-60 1.3 curies, Fe-55 0.74 curies, Zr-95 0.26 curies, Co-58 0.25 curies, Sb-124 0.22 curies, Sb-125 0.14 curie, C-14 0.13 curie, Ag-110 0.089 curie, Ni-63 0.082 curies, Ru-106 0.061 curies, Ru-103 0.55 curies,Mn-54 0.047 curies, Sb-113 0.042m curies, Fe-59 0.036 curies, Cs-137 0.011 curies, Pu-241 0.0037 curies, Sr-90 0.00049 curies, H-3 0.0004 curies, Tc-99 0.00081 curies, I-129 0.000014 curies, non-compacted trash or solids: Cs-137 0.18 curies, Fe-55 0.025 curies, Sr-89 0.016 curies, N-63 0.01 curies, Ru-106 0.0061 curies, Ce-144 0.0059 curies, Co-60 0.0025 curies, Pu-241 0.0018 curies, C-14 0.0003 curies, H-3 0.0000047 curies, Fe-55 2.3 curies, C0-60 2 curies, Ni-63 0.14 curies, Co-58 0.72 curies, Cs-137 0.65 curies, Ru-106 0.49 curies, Cr-51 0.30 curies, Zr-95 0.14 curies, Sb-125 0.099 curies, Ce-144 0.087 curies, Sr-90 0.019 curies, C-14 0.00082 curies, H-3 0.0007 curies, another shipment of non-compacted trash or solids: Cs-137 0.028 curies, Ni-63 0.0065 curies, Fe-55 0.0061 curies, Co-60 0.0029 curies, Co-58 0.0027 curies, Sr-99 0.0027 curies, Cr-51 0.00051 curies, C-14 0.000052 curies, H-3 0.0000082 curies, Dewatered Ion Exchange resins: C0-58 59 curies, Cs-137 44.7 curies, C0-60 29 curies, Fe-55 11.8 curies, Cs-134 9.3 curies, Sb-124 2.8 curies, Ni-63 2.8 curies, C-14 1.3 curies, Sr-90 1.2 curies, H-3 0.017 curies, I-129 0.0017 curies.
Total shipped activity: 172.6 curies Another 1.462 curies of non-compacted trash or solids and dewatered filtered media waiting to be shipped. 4.29 curies of compacted nd non-compacted trash and solids transferred to a broker. 0.002286 curies of mixed waste in barrels on site.
1991 shipped: non-compacted trash or solids: Fe-55 1.613 curies, Ni-63 1.499 curies, C0-60 1.413 curies, C0-58 0.612 curies, Cs-137 0.561 curies, Ru-106 0.219 curies, H-3 0.144 curies, Cr-51 0.112 curies, Ag-110m 0.092 curies, Sb-125 0.0582 curies, Zr-95 0.0466 curies, Ce-144 0.0366 curies, Cs-134 0.0254 curies, Sr-90 0.0174 curies, C-14 0.00255 curies, Sr-89 0.00254 curies, Ce-141 0.00131 curies, Pu-239/240 0.000787 curies, Am-241 0.000714 curies, Pu-241 0.00036 curies, Zn-65 0.000175 curies, C0-57 0.00011 curies, Pu-238 0.00000917 curies, dewatered filter media: C0-58 8.70 curies, Pm-147 4.45 curies, Cr-51 3.41 curies, C0-60 2.79 curies, Ni-63 1.39 curies, Fe-55 1.16 curies, Nb-95 0.352 curies, Zr-95 0.331 curies, C-14
0.247 curies, Cs-137 0.198 curies, Sb-124 0.195 curies, Sb-125 0.140, Ag-110m 0.0850, Cs-134 0.0766, Ce-144 0.0565 curies, Pu-241 0.0103 curies, Sr-90 0.00448 curies, Ru-106 0.00228 curies, H-3 0.000672 curies, Tc-99 0.000263 curies, Am-241 0.000127 curies, Cm-243/244 0.000118 curies, Pu-239/240 0.000108 curies, PU-238 0.000099 curies, I-129 0.00000316 curies, dewatered ion exchange resins: Cs-137 149.55 curies, Ni-63 80.29 curies, C0-60 46.2 curies, Cs-134 22.36 curies, Fe-55 8.49 curies, Cr-51 2.91 curies, Ru-106 1.68 curies, C0-58 1.033 curies, Sr-90 0.732 cureis, Mn-54 0.521 curies, Sb-125 0.5009 curies, C-14 0.2143 curies, Ce-144 0.199 curies, Fe-59 0.103 curies, Nb-94 0.0985 curies, Pm-147 0.0668 curies, Sr-89 0.483 curies, Pu-241 0.0404 curies, Zn-65 0.0105 curies, H-3 0.00632 curies, Np-237 0.00188 curies, Pu-239/240 0.000497 curies, Am-241 0.0002564 curies, Pu-238 0.0001708 curies, Cm-243/244 0.000153 curies, I-129 0.0000627 curies, Tc-99 0.00000612 curies Total activity: 315.056 curies 0.03441 curies awaiting shipment, 0.969 curies sent to a broker, 0.0281 curies of mixed waste in barrels on site.
IN CONCLUSION: I certainly hope this meets the NMFS definition of adverse effect under the MSA as (50 CFR 600.810 [TN1342]): any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH and they close Diablo Canyon.
Thus, the quality of fish habitat in the area is extremely unlikely to be affected by radiological contamination. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that radionuclide discharges would result in no more than minimal adverse effects on EFH in the affected area.
NMFS please see through this lie.
Page 3-137 3.8.4.3.4 Physical Removal of Habitat Through Maintenance Dredging 14 Dredging results in the direct removal of bottom habitats along with infaunal and epifaunal 15 organisms of limited mobility inhabiting the affected substrates. Dredging also creates sediment 16 plumes that increase water turbidity. Thus, dredging affects both the quantity and quality of fish 17 habitat. The direct removal of substrates, sediments, and benthic organisms represent effects to 18 habitat quantity. The resulting short-term reductions in biomass of benthic organisms and 19 increased water turbidity represent effects on habitat quality. PG&E conducted dredging of the 20 Intake Cove in summer 2024. In support of this effort, PG&E obtained a CWA Section 404 21 permit from the USACE prior to conducting dredging. Details on the dredging effort at the 22 potential impacts to EFH can be found in PG&Es EFH assessment (Stantec 2023-TN10661).
23 PG&E has no plans to dredge during the proposed license renewal period. Therefore, there 24 would be no impacts to EFH in the affected area associated with dredging.
Page 3-88 Diablo Cove: Diablo Cove lies to the north of Intake Cove. This cove receives Diablo Canyons 1
thermal effluent discharge of Pacific Ocean water that the plant withdraws from Intake Cove for 2
cooling purposes.
So the EIS definition of Diablo Cove is that it is north of Intake Cove and that it receives Diablo Canyons (TWO NUCLEAR REACTORS) thermal effluent discharge.
Pacific Ocean: Based on NPDES plume surveys from 1986 to 1990 (PG&E 2008-TN10104), Diablo Canyons thermal plume is primarily detectable between 0.5 and 1 mi (0.8 and 1.6 km) offshore (41 to 60 percent of survey samples) with a maximum extent of 2 mi (3.2 km) either north or south of Diablo Cove during certain tidal conditions.
The above should really read Diablo Canyons RADIOACTIVE thermal plume So this proves the radionuclides travel south of Diablo Cove during certain tidal conditions. South of Diablo Cove is Intake Cove. There has to be some pulling in/
recirculation of the Diablo Cove radionuclides back in to Intake Cove since the initial construction of the breakwater.
As established above, Intake Cove has accumulated oil and grease, chemical additives:
chlorination, liquid sodium hypochlorite and a supplemental chemical, sodium bromide, total suspended solids, metals, tritium, gamma emitters, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, temperature, turbidity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity.
PG&E decided to remove the accumulated sand and kelp by dredging Intake Cove, which had not been performed since the initial construction of the breakwater.
Did PG&E decided to remove or cover up the radionuclides, oil and grease, chemical additives: chlorination, liquid sodium hypochlorite and a supplemental chemical, sodium bromide, total suspended solids, metals, tritium, gamma emitters, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, temperature, turbidity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity that had accumulated since 1984 by two nuclear reactors?
The 14 California Coastal Commission approved issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for the 15 Diablo Canyon Intake Cove Dredging Project on March 14, 2024, which fulfills the CZMA 16
certification requirement for the project.
Is the California Costal Commission aware that this sand and kelp is radioactive and otherwise contaminated? Did they really know what they were doing when they issued this permit? It is interesting that the dredging was performed this year, before the licensing was complete and before decommissioning.
New and Significant information PG&E was authorized to dredge up to 70,000 cubic 17 yards (53,519 cubic m [m3]) of accumulated sand and sediment from within a 125,000 square 18 foot (ft2) (11,613 square meter [m2]) dredge footprint at the north end of Intake Cove to a depth 19 of -38 ft mean lower low water.
Because of the dredging, some percent of the radionuclides and chemicals have been moved to west of Morro Bay State Park. In essence a new radioactive/chemical waste dump has been created in the ocean. Dont you need a license for that? The permit was for dredging, not creating a new nuclear/chemical dump.
Approximately 26,000 cubic yards of material was removed from the cove and placed at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nearshore Placement Area located south of the entrance to Morrow Bay and west of Morrow Bay State Park (PG&E 20226)
There also must be new thermal plumes west of Morro Bay State Park and south of the Morro Bay entrance so the NPDES needs to perform new thermal plume studies.
Dredging activities were monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service Does the National Marine Fisheries Service know this sand and kelp is radioactive and full of chemicals?
New and Significant information 3.8.4.3.5 Reduction in the Prey Base of the Habitat The NRC staff concludes that the reduction in the prey base of the habitat resulting from the 37 proposed Diablo Canyon LR would result in no more than minimal adverse effects on EFH in 38 the affected area.
The affected area has been expanded to include west of Morro Bay State Park and south of the Morro Bay entrance since the dredging of 2024.
Page 3-137 Conclusion for Designated Essential Fish Habitat 40 Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would result in no more 41 than minimal adverse effects on the designated EFH of all life stages of coastal pelagic species 42
3-138 complex, euphausiids (krill), groundfish, and highly migratory species. The NRC staff will 1
engage in EFH consultation with the NMFS regarding this determination following the issuance 2
of this draft SEIS.
My conclusion is that you have expanded the adverse effects to affect the essential fish habitat (EFH) in a wider area and may in the future dump more radionuclides and chemicals at your new nuclear dump west of Morro Bay State Park and south of the Morro Bay entrance, whether that be during continued operation, decommissioning, or post a nuclear power accident. Page 3-123 While Diablo Canyon continues to operate, public access to Intake Cove, Diablo Cove, and other nearshore marine areas will remain prohibited. What about west of Morro Bay State Park and south of the Morro Bay entrance?
Page 3-136 3.8.4.3.3 Chemical Alteration of Habitat Through Radionuclides and Other Contaminants in 28 Heated Effluent Discharges 29 With heated effluent, Diablo Canyon discharges certain nonradiological chemical pollutants.
The 30 SWRCB limits the allowable concentrations of these pollutants through the sites NPDES permit.
31 The NPDES permit establishes allowable pollutant discharge concentration limits for total 32 residual chlorine, pH, total phosphorus, fecal coliform, total organic carbon, and total petroleum 33 hydrocarbons at levels at or below the EPA (2024-TN10276) national recommended aquatic life 34 criteria for acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposure.
Diablo Cove: arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, cyanide, total residual chlorine, ammonia, toxicity, non-chlorinated phenolic compounds, chlorinated phenolics, and radioactivity. In addition to the once-through cooling water, service cooling water and in-plant waste streams are also discharged through Outfall 001 and are labeled Discharge 001A, 001B, 001D through 001N, and 001P.
Discharges 001D, 001F through 001M, and 001P have specified concentration limits for suspended solids and oil and grease. When metal cleaning operations occur, discharges 001D, 001F, 001L, and 001M have specified concentration limits for total copper and total iron. Discharge 001N has specified concentration limits for suspended solids, settleable solids, and oil and grease.
The NPDES permit for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 allows PG&E to discharge via external Outfalls 001 through 017 (Figure 3-3). Cooling water and industrial process wastewater from Diablo Canyon are discharged to the Pacific Ocean in accordance with
Diablo Canyon NPDES Permit No. CA0003751, Order No. 90-09 (PG&E 2023-TN9822). The receiving water bodies are the Pacific Ocean and Diablo Creek. The NPDES permit also authorizes 13 additional outfalls that are internal. External Outfalls 004 through 015 are related to stormwater runoff. Outfall 001 discharges to Diablo Cove, Outfalls 002 and 004 discharge to Intake Cove, Outfall 003 discharges to the Pacific Ocean, Outfalls 005, 006, 016, and 017 discharge to the South Cove, Outfall 007 discharges to the Pacific Ocean, and Outfalls 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014 and 015 discharge to Diablo Creek.
Intake Cove has accumulated oil and grease, chemical additives: chlorination, liquid sodium hypochlorite and a supplemental chemical, sodium bromide, total suspended solids, metals, tritium, gamma emitters, total organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, temperature, turbidity, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity plus radionuclides.
So all of the above are in the Diablo Cove heated effluent discharges and have been concentrated over the years in the sand and sediment. This EIS did not explain what was discharged from two of the outfalls into Intake Cove. A good percentage of all of the above are also concentrated in Intake Cove and now, because of the dredging, concentrated south of the entrance to Morro Bay and west of Morro Bay State Park. (And dont forget all the radionuclides!)
Page 3-139 Conclusion for Sanctuary Resources 1
The NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to destroy, cause 2
the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources of the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine 3
Sanctuary.
You already have affected, destroyed, caused the loss of and injured sanctuary resources. Continued operation will only make things worse.
Pages 3-140 to 3-141 Page 3-140 3.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 30 This section of the SEIS describes the cultural background and the historic and cultural 31 resources found at Diablo Canyon and in the surrounding area. Section 106 of the NHPA 32 (54 U.S.C. 306108; TN4839), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their 33 undertakings on historic properties. Renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant is 34 an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties. Historic properties are defined as 35 resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for 36 eligibility are listed in the 36 CFR 60.4 (TN1682) and include (A) association with significant 37
events in history; (B) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; (C) 38 embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; and (D) 39 sites or places that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in history or 40 prehistory. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c) (TN513), the NRC complies with the obligations 41 required under NHPA Section 106 through its process under NEPA (TN661).
42 3-141 The proposed action is to renew the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon for an additional 1
20-year period. The LR area of potential effects (APE) includes lands within the nuclear power 2
plant site boundary and the transmission lines up to the first substation that may be directly 3
affected by land-disturbing or other operational activities associated with continued plant 4
operations and maintenance and/or refurbishment activities. The APE may extend beyond the 5
nuclear plant site when these activities may indirectly (e.g., visual and auditory) affect historic 6
properties. This determination is made irrespective of land ownership or control. In the context 7
of the NHPA, the APE for the proposed action is the 750 ac (304 ha) Diablo Canyon industrial 8
site.
The extension of the LR affects more land than the 750 ac described above. The area of potential effects (APE) should include all lands downwind of a nuclear accident. That would include Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, which is of an astronomical historical and financial concern.
Page 3-149 earlier undocumented work occurred by the Los Angeles County Museum in the late 1920s (Enright et al. 2021-TN10293).
Perhaps the Los Angeles County Museum could help you expand your APE.
Page 3-151 3.9.3 Procedures and Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan As part of the initial licenses for operation, the NRC required PG&E to develop a management 31 plan for the avoidance and protection of site SLO-2. The license condition also stipulated the 32 continued access of Diablo Canyon Lands to the Northern Chumash for cultural and religious 33 activities. In response, PG&E developed the 1980 Archaeological Resources Management Plan 34 (ARMP). Interdepartmental Administrative Procedure EV1.ID2, CA-SLO-2 Site Management, 35 guides the implementation of the ARMP for continued compliance at Diablo Canyon. This
36 includes ongoing monitoring to document any natural or physical changes to SLO-2. If projects 37 are to impact the site, the Land Stewardship Committee coordinates completion and submittal of 38 regulatory agency notifications, responses to requests, and other project related reports.
Radionuclides and radiation is invisible.
Page 3-153 3.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 3.9.4.2 Findings No new construction or modifications are anticipated for the proposed action. Plant operations 38 and maintenance activities necessary to support the continued operation would be limited to 39 previously disturbed areas and would be expected to be similar to current operations As such, the proposed action 42 will result in no adverse effect to historic properties, as defined in 36 CFR 800.5(b) (TN513).
43 So the high level waste will stay where it is or be trucked out? No new rail line connection?
Previously disturbed areas now includes the Pacific Ocean off of Morro Bay and Morro Bay State Park. Close to Morro Rock.
New and Significant Information For the yak titu titu yak tiłhini 3
(YTT), Pecho Coast is the home of their ancestors villages, and the lands are still used today 4
as prayer sites and a gathering location for resource procurement for making basketry and 5
regalia. For the Santa Ynez, Morro Rock is the location of their Solstice Ceremony 6
(ML24108A054; Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians 2024-TN10281).
The NRC staff discussed with Santa Ynez 21 Band archaeologist Wendy Teeter the Diablo Canyon Lands cultural resources, previous 22 archaeological surveys completed in the area, and any potential concerns with the proposed 23 LR. Ms. Teeter shared the Bands work on proposing Morro Rock (Lisamu) as a TCP and 24 potentially having the entirety of Diablo Canyons coastline as a Traditional Cultural Landscape.
25
Ms. Teeter requested copies of the Enright et al. 2021 report and the Johnson 2020 26 ethnographic survey for her records (NRC 2024-TN10317).
Figure G-1 Study Grid and Depth Contours for Population Density Assessments of Cancer Species, Megalops, and Larval Fish in the Vicinity of Diablo Canyon.
Source: Tenera 2000-TN10211 shows the new ocean radioactive/chemical sediment and kelp dump right next to Morro Rock.
3.10.1 Nuclear Power Plant Employment How many workers would be on site if there was a nuclear power accident?
3.10.3 Demographic Characteristics 14 According to the 2020 Census, an estimated 155,845 people live within 20 mi (32 km) of Diablo 15 Canyon, which equates to a population density of 124 persons per square mile (PG&E 2023-16 TN9822). This amount translates to a Category 4 population density using the LR GEIS (NRC 17 2024-TN10161: See page 3-86, adapted from original source, NUREG/CR-2239) measure of 18 sparseness, which is defined as greater than or equal to 120 persons per square mile within 19 20 mi (32 km). An estimated 499,581 people live within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Diablo 20 Canyon site, which equates to a population density of 64 persons per square mile (PG&E 2023-21 TN9822). This translates to a Category 3 proximity index. Therefore, Diablo Canyon is a 22 combination of sparseness Category 4 and proximity Category 3 translating to a high 23 population area based on the LR GEIS sparseness and proximity matrix (NRC 2024-TN10161).
And all these people and more (Monterey County, Santa Barbara County, Ventura County, Los Angeles County and beyond) are all expendable to Robert J Budnitz from the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Commission who proposed to write ahead of time the press release that states everything its safe in case of a nuclear accident at Diablo Canyon Because everything is safe. Robert J Budnitz proposed this idea toward the end of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Commission meeting Oct 10, 2024. He needs to be fired for pre-meditated murder of the public. And hes on the Safety Commission. I guess he interprets that as safe for the nuclear industry to continue operations into infinity.
Page 3-163 PG&E indicated in its ER that it has no plans to add non-outage workers during the LR term and 1
that increased maintenance and inspection activities could be managed using the current 2
workforce. Consequently, people living near Diablo Canyon would not experience any changes
3 in socioeconomic conditions during the LR term beyond what is currently being experienced.
4 Therefore, the impact of continued reactor operations during the renewal term would not exceed 5
the socioeconomic impacts predicted in the LR GEIS. For these issues, the LR GEIS predicted 6
that socioeconomic impacts, including transportation, would be SMALL for all nuclear power 7
plants.
Unless there was nuclear power plant accident.
3.10.8 No-Action Alternative 9
3.10.8.1 Socioeconomics 10 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not renew the operating licenses and Diablo 11 Canyon would shut down on or before the expiration of the current operating licenses. This 12 would have a noticeable impact on socioeconomic conditions in the counties and communities 13 near Diablo Canyon. The loss of jobs, income, and tax revenue would have an immediate 14 socioeconomic impact. As jobs are eliminated, some, but not all, of the more than 1,200 workers 15 could leave the region. Income from the buying and selling of goods and services needed to 16 maintain the nuclear power plant would also be reduced. In addition, loss of tax revenue could 17 affect the availability of public services.
18 If Diablo Canyon workers and their families move out of the region, increased vacancies and 19 reduced demand for housing would likely cause property values to fall. The greatest 20 socioeconomic impact would be experienced in the communities located nearest to Diablo 21 Canyon in San Luis Obispo County. However, the loss of jobs, income, and tax revenue may 22 not be as noticeable in larger communities due to the time and steps required to prepare the 23 nuclear power plant for decommissioning. Therefore, depending on the jurisdiction, 24 socioeconomic impacts from not renewing the operating licenses and terminating reactor 25 operations at Diablo Canyon (no-action alternative) could range from SMALL to LARGE.
Future jobs in the nuclear industry need to be centered around how to obtain power from the already existing high-level waste. Surely there is a material that could capture the
nuclear bombardment of beta and gamma rays and/or heat and change that into electricity WITHOUT CREATING MORE NUCLEAR WASTE. Someone needs to design a system that shields the public from this waste but captures the energy and turns it into something useful. I believe the high-level waste should be kept above ground for easy retrieval and re-packaging. Canada recently announced they will be placing their waste underground and Finland is doing the same. But Germany put theirs underground and then had to pay to bring it back up to the surface as it was leaking into the aquifer.
Page 3-167 3.11.3 Microbiological Hazards 20 Microbiological hazards occur when workers or members of the public come in contact with 21 disease-causing microorganisms, also known as etiological agents. Thermal effluents 22 associated with nuclear power plants that discharge to water accessible to the public have the 23 potential to promote the growth of certain thermophilic microorganisms linked to adverse human 24 health effects. Microorganisms of particular concern include several types of bacteria and the 25 free living amoeba Naegleria fowleri (N. fowleri). There are optimum growth temperatures for 26 the microorganisms of concern as further discussed in the LR GEIS (NRC 2024-TN10161).
27 As discussed in Section 2.1.3, Diablo Canyon utilizes a once-through cooling water system to 28 remove thermal energy. Water is withdrawn from the Pacific Ocean and returned to the ocean 29 after completing the cooling cycle. The Diablo Canyon intake and discharge coves, which 30 connect directly to the Pacific Ocean, are protected by a 2,000 yd (1,800 m) marine 31 exclusionary area. This barrier restricts public access to the intake and discharge coves (PG&E 32 2023-TN9822). These access restrictions limit public exposure to thermophilic microorganisms 33 in the receiving waters of the plant. Therefore, continued operation is not expected to result in 34 adverse effects to the health of the public from microbiological hazards. Public exposure to 35 Legionella from nuclear power plant operation is generally not a concern because exposure risk 36 is confined to components and equipment, which are typically within the protected area of the 37 site and, therefore, not accessible to the public.
Not anymore as you just dredged the north end of Intake Cove and moved it west of Morro Bay State Park and south of the Morro Bay entrance.
Page 3-167 Diseases (e.g., legionellosis and primary amoebic 43 3-168 meningoencephalitis) that involve respiratory or nasal infectivity routes are of primary concern, 1
and workers should wear appropriate respiratory protection. Workers performing underwater 2
activities should wear protective gear to prevent oral or nasal exposure to amoebae or other 3
pathogenic bacteria.
The above is describing workers performing underwater activities at Intake Cove. All those risks have now been transferred to west of Morro Bay State Park and south of the Morro Bay entrance. The workers should be wearing protective gear against radionuclides.
New and Significant Information Page 3-169 As discussed in Section 3.11.3 of this SEIS, Diablo Canyon utilizes a once-46 3-170 through cooling system that intakes and discharges to the Pacific Ocean. This area is not 1
accessible to the public. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the Category 2 issue of 2
microbiological hazards to the public is not applicable to Diablo Canyon LR, that further review 3
of the issue is not warranted, and that continued operation is not expected to result in adverse 4
effects with respect to the issue.
No longer an accurate statement since the dredging of Intake Cove and the placement of Intake Coves contents elsewhere.
Page 3-171 The LR GEIS also specifies that with respect to severe accidents, although the probability-26 weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 27 groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are SMALL for all 28 plants, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not 29 considered such alternatives and would be the functional equivalent of a Category 2 issue 30 requiring plant-specific analysis (NRC 2024-TN10161). Furthermore, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) 31 requires that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the 32
NRC staff has not previously evaluated severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for the 33 applicants plant in an EIS or related supplement or in an environmental assessment. The 34 purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, procedures, and 35 training) with the potential for improving the environmental impact of severe accidents are 36 identified and evaluated.
Mark 1 and 2 GE Plants designed with the spent fuel pool on top are dirty bombs. Close all those plants down immediately.
Estimate of Risk Page 3-174 PG&E estimated the dose to the population within 50 mi (80 km) of the Diablo Canyon site to be 5
approximately 0.369 person Sieverts (Sv) per year (36.9 person-rem per year) for internal 6
events, internal flooding events, fire events, and seismic events combined (PG&E 2023-7 TN9822). The breakdown of the total population dose and offsite economic cost risk by 8
containment release mode is summarized in Table 3-32. Small and large early releases are the 9
dominant contributors to population dose risk.
10 The NRC staff reviewed PG&Es data and evaluation methods and concludes that the quality of 11 the risk analyses is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential for 12 candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the NRC staff bases its assessment of offsite risk on the CDFs, 13 offsite doses, and offsite economic costs reported by PG&E.
Any dose is an overdose.
3-181 3.11.7 No-Action Alternative 11 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue renewed licenses, and Diablo Canyon 12 would shut down on or before the expiration of the current licenses. Human health risks would 13 be smaller after plant shutdown. The reactor units, which currently operate within regulatory 14 limits, would emit less radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid material to the environment. In 15 addition, after shutdown, the variety of potential accidents at the plant (radiological or industrial) 16 would be reduced to a limited set associated with shutdown events and fuel handling and
17 storage. In Section 3.11.6 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of continued 18 plant operation on human health would be SMALL, except for EMFs for which the impacts are 19 uncertain. In Section 3.11.6.3,the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of postulated accidents 20 during operation are SMALL. Therefore, as both radioactive emissions to the environment and 21 the likelihood and types of accidents decrease after shutdown, the NRC staff concludes that the 22 risk to human health under the no-action alternative would be SMALL.
The above is the best case scenario. Please shut them down.
Page 3-185 In determining the location of minority and/or low-income populations, the NRC uses a 50 mi 3
(80 km) radius from the facility as the geographic area to perform a comparative analysis. The 4
50 mi (80 km) radius is consistent with the impact analysis conducted for human health impacts.
5 Why 50 miles? This is not explained. A nuclear accident would affect a much greater area than 50 miles. Chernobyl (and Fukushima) plumes went world-wide. Ernest J. Sternglass, Ph.D. wrote a paper on how there were no chicks born in the spring after the Chernobyl cloud had passed at Point Reyes Bird Observatory in California. Chernobyl exploded April 26, 1986. I believe it was the spring of 1987 that no chicks hatched.
Page 3-189 A plant effect would be indicated if the 32 radioactive material detected in a sample was higher than background levels.
Acceptable radiation levels in America were raised after the Fukushima reactors blew up.
Background levels as well have risen since the first atomic bomb. The background level used should be the one that existed BEFORE the first atomic bomb explosion. Then all would properly see how contaminated our food and water really are.
New and Significant Information The first type, a control sample, is collected from areas beyond the 34 influence of the nuclear power plant or any other nuclear facility. These control samples are 35 used as reference data to determine normal background levels of radiation in the environment.
This is a total fallacy. The control sample is radioactive from all the previous nuclear power and atomic bomb releases. There is no such thing as areas beyond the influence
of the nuclear power plant or any nuclear facility. We are all radioactive and so is this planet. Man-made radionuclides can be found in baby teeth.
Based on radiological environmental monitoring data, special pathway receptor populations in 3
the region would not likely experience disproportionate and adverse human health impacts 4
because of subsistence consumption. In addition, the continued operation of Diablo Canyon 5
would not have disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on these 6
populations.
Not true. Diablo Canyon would continue releasing its radionuclides into the air, water and land and bioaccumulation would continue, which is the CONCENTRATION of these radionuclides in our food chain.
3.12.2 No-Action Alternative 8
Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not renew the operating licenses, and Diablo 9
Canyon Units 1 and 2 would shut down on or before the expiration of the current facility 10 operating license. Impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes 11 would depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenues lost in communities 12 located near the power plant after reactor operations cease. Not renewing the operating 13 licenses and terminating reactor operations could have a noticeable impact on socioeconomic 14 conditions in the communities located near Diablo Canyon. The loss of jobs and income could 15 have an immediate socioeconomic impact. Some, but not all, of the approximately 16 1,222 permanent workers could leave the area. In addition, the plant would generate less tax 17 revenue, which could reduce the availability of public services. This reduction could 18 disproportionately affect minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes that may 19 have become dependent on these services.
This is a horrible excuse to continue a cancer factory that affects many lives greater than a 50 mile radius.
New and Significant Information Conclusion 8
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 9
presented in this SEIS, it is unlikely that a new energy generating facility would be constructed 10 (renewables combination alternative) and allowed to operate in a manner that would result in 11 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 12 populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes. However, this determination would also 13 depend on the location, power plant design, and operational characteristics of the energy 14 generating facility. Purchased power from existing energy generating facilities would not likely 15 have any disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 16 populations or Indian Tribes, because there would be no significant change in power plant 17 operations or workforce. Low-income populations, however, could be disproportionately affected 18 by the increased cost of utility bills, due to the cost of purchased power, although programs are 19 available to assist low-income families in paying for increased electrical costs. Ultimately, the 20 NRC staff cannot determine whether the renewables combination alternative or the purchased 21 power alternative would result in disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental 22 effects on minority, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes.
It is the nuclear power rates that have doubled in the last year in California and are only expected to rise as the aging power plants need repairs.
Page 3-195 Classes B and C wastes constitute a low percentage by volume of the total 14 LLRW generated.
A low percentage by volume but a high percentage by curies. Curies instead of volume should be used as the curie is the measurement of radioactivity and provides us with a more accurate description of the nuclear waste. It is curies that we must attempt to isolate from the biosphere. If the volume were an accurate description of this waste, we would be sending the waste to a municipal landfill instead of constructing a nuclear dump. Using volume depictions is a cover-up tactic used by the nuclear industry to make people think there is no harm.
Diablo Canyon sends its Class A LLRW to either EnergySolutions in Utah or Waste Control 18 Specialists in Texas. Classes B and C waste is disposed of at Waste Control Specialists in Utah 19 (PG&E 2023-TN9822). Routine plant operation, refueling outages, and maintenance activities 20 that generate radioactive solid waste would continue during the LR term. Radioactive solid
21 waste is expected to be generated and shipped off site for disposal during the LR term. As 22 discussed during the audit, there are no plans to change the radioactive solid waste disposal 23 program during the LR period (PG&E 2024-TN10032).
Past history of LLRW dumps:
PROBLEMS WITH WASTE DUMPS In the late 1980s there were six existing commercial nuclear dumps in the United States. These are not to be confused with the fifteen leaking military nuclear dumps. Three of the six dumps were closed due to leakage problems.
According to authorities, the Maxey Flats, Kentucky site was expected to retain the buried plutonium for its hazardous lifetime of 240,000 years. Within ten years plutonium was detected two miles from where it was originally buried. High levels of Tritium have been found in maple sap, well-water and milk off-site. At the Sheffield, Illinois site the trench caps are cracked, eroding and require continual maintenance. At this site Tritium is migrating at a rate of 2000-3000 ft./yr. The West Valley, New York site was closed due to poor construction and inadequate analysis of geographical and hydrological features. The trenches began to leak almost immediately and various radioactive poisons have migrated off site. Two of the remaining dumps, Barnwell, South Carolina and Beatty, Nevada, are scheduled to close in 1993. The Richland, Washington site will continue as the host site for the Rocky Mountain Compact. All three of these dumps suffer from many of the same problems noted above. The cancer rate at Barnwell, South Carolina is six times the national average.
Gases are produced as radioisotopes decay. When radioactive waste is sealed in an airtight container, it eventually explodes. All nuclear dumps world-wide are vented allowing radioactive gases to escape into the surrounding air. These vents also provide an avenue for water to leak in, eventually corroding the waste containers. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission legally sanctifies and licenses these leaky dumps. They admit that zero release is unattainable.
Page 3-197 Based on its review of the REMP and inadvertent release data, the NRC staff finds no apparent 7
increasing trend in concentration or pattern indicating persistently high tritium or other 8
radionuclide concentrations that might indicate an ongoing inadvertent release from Diablo 9
Canyon. The groundwater monitoring program data at Diablo Canyon show that PG&E 10
monitors, characterizes, and actively remediates spills, and that there were no significant 11 radiological impacts to the environment from operations at Diablo Canyon.
But there may be a leak in the vault. The sump pumps tested for tritium but you did not test for other radionuclides. This involves money for repairs that you do not want to admit to. NOT SAFE.
Page 3-198 3.13.3 Proposed Action The ultimate disposal of spent fuel in 44 a potential future geologic repository is a separate and independent licensing action that is 45 outside the regulatory scope of this review. Per 10 CFR Part 51 (TN10253) Subpart A, 46 3-199 Appendix B, the Commission concludes that the impacts presented in NUREG-2157 (NRC 1
2014-TN4117) would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that 2
the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878) should be eliminated.
3 Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the 4
impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered generic to 5
all nuclear power plants. There are no site-specific (Category 2) waste management issues 6
applicable to Diablo Canyon (Table 3-2).
And that is the failure of the NRC. You just keep allowing more and more of this nuclear waste to be generated. The way to stop this madness of curies accumulation and the poisoning of this planet is to start closing down these plants. You instead have allowed them to keep this high level waste on-site near the ocean and have sanctioned their concrete platforms and radioactive gas/heat releases. All adding to the heating of our planet and the melting of our ice-caps. All adding to the cancers, diseases and suffering by all living creatures on this one-of a kind blue ball in our planetary system. You, NRC, have made this planet uninhabitable for life forms into the future so much so that we have people on this planet planning to escape to another planet to survive. How sick are you people that you make such decisions that influence the very existence of life on this planet? This whole industry has been a mistake from the very beginning. Figure out a different way to turn a turbine (See Alcohol Can Be A Gas by David Blume for base load energy that is carbon negative). Survival of the human race and other life forms depends on clean water, air and land. We have a moral obligation to become the voice of the future. We must act responsibly. We must support energy alternatives that are environmentally sound.
3.13.4 No-Action Alternative
8 Under the no-action alternative, Diablo Canyon would cease operation at the end of the term of 9
the current licenses or sooner and enter decommissioning. After entering decommissioning, the 10 plant would generate less spent nuclear fuel, emit fewer gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents 11 into the environment, and generate less low-level radioactive and nonradioactive waste. In 12 addition, after shutdown, the variety of potential accidents at the plant (radiological and 13 industrial) would be reduced to a limited set associated with shutdown events and fuel handling 14 and storage. Therefore, as radioactive emissions to the environment decrease, and the 15 likelihood and variety of accidents decrease after shutdown and decommissioning, the NRC 16 staff concludes that impacts resulting from waste management for the no-action alternative 17 would be SMALL.
Shutdown would be huge. We would begin to heal as a planet. There is even a book written about it:
Shutdown: Nuclear Power On Trial, The Book Publishing Company, Summertown, Tennessee 38483 New and Significant Information Page 3-2000 3.14 Evaluation of New and Significant Information Here is New and Significant Information I have not seen you mention in this EIS:
CARBON NEGATIVE. A way to turn a turbine that is CARBON NEGATIVE and could be used past 2045 in the State of California: Alcohol could replace all fossil fuels on this planet, inclusive of electricity generating plants. Existing electricity plants that already have access to the grid (and automobiles) can be modified to run on alcohol. That would eliminate construction of new plants.
David Blumes ALCOHOL CAN BE A GAS! Book 2 Making Alcohol: How To Do It. c 2007 The Untapped Potential. Pages 156 to 157 Excerpt The potential impact of a crop such as algae cant be ignored. The attraction of marine algae over land plants is that algae dont have to fight gravity. As a result, the cellulose-lignin structures that give land plants their structural integrity and ability to stand up arent needed.
Thus, much more the plants energy goes into growth and carbohydrate production.
Kelp can grow inches or even more than a foot per day! Another big advantage is that in many locations no fertilizer is necessary to produce it. Kelp lives in a hydroponic solution, also known as the ocean. Nutrient-limiting factors on growth evaporate where kelp is cultivated near river outflows containing sewage entering the ocean. (102)
Kelps foot-a-day growth is primarily limited by the level of dissolved carbon dioxide in the water. If kelp-to-alcohol plants were built, kelp farms could return the fermentation carbon dioxide to themselves, bubbling it through the kelp, increasing growth. This would generate more oxygen and cool the water further.
So lets design an energy system to work as a crash program of kelp farming for energy.
There are major ecological reasons to do so. The United Nations has concluded that there are 150 intermittent or permanent dead zones in the world today. (103) These are areas of ocean where the elevated nitrogen causes a population boom and the decompensation of microscopic algae. In the process of decomposition, all the oxygen in the water is consumed, killing off sea life. Some of the dead zones, like the one in the Baltic, are over 62,000 square miles in size! Although no one has fully measured the extent of the Mississippi/Gulf dead zone, it is at least 20,700 square kilometers (7992 square miles). All along the East Coast and at river mouths on the West Coast, there are dead zones or areas with very elevated nitrogen levels.
It may already be necessary to start these kelp farms for their water-cooling-function in order to save the Pacific fisheries. Due to warming of the water along the California, Oregon, and Washington coasts, krill have disappeared. Although they are called zooplankton, krill get to be one to two inches long. Animals from birds to whales depend on them for food.
Its the krill that drive the food web dynamics off this coast, said Ellie Cohen, the Executive director of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory in California. Their absence has tremendous implications for everything out there, right up to the humpback and blue whales. We dont know if this is a result of global warmingbut without the krill, you could be looking at a food web collapse. (104)
Water temperatures along the Gulf of Alaska are the highest theyve been in 50 years. (105)
This effect does not match the usual patterns of El Nino and seems to be the result of global warming. If the water doesnt cool, then phytoplankton and krill that eat it cannot survive. So massive kelp farming might have to be implemented to locally absorb solar energy and cool the ocean surface so that plankton can survive and feed the food chain.
In the process of growth, kelp produces oxygen while absorbing carbon dioxide dissolved in the water. So, kelp farms would be oxygen-rich oases for sea life in the dead zones. Putting massive seaweed farms in the Gulf, for instance, would dramatically cool the surface water, since the solar energy would be turning into kelp carbohydrates instead of heated water. This would serve as a buffer against hurricanes, causing them to cool and stumble down a couple of categories before hitting land. We could convert the oil platforms to plants that process seaweed for alcohol, and pipe it to shore.
The liquid stillage remaining after distillation would resemble the kelp solution currently used by organic and other farmers as a natural wide-spectrum fertilizer. In Norway and China, kelp is dried in large quantities for kelp meal or kelp solutions as fertilizer. If we adopted a national strategy to implement kelp farms, the amount of chemical phosphorus and potassium fertilizers used by farmers would dwindle to zero, since the forms found in kelp solutions are superior.
This plan would also go a long way toward eliminating the toxic, and in some cases, radioactive, chemicals released into the environment as byproducts of current production of commercial fertilizers. So alcohol production could be seen as a byproduct of producing non-toxic, petroleum-free fertilizers for the nations agriculture.
Do you think I am proposing an outlandish scheme? In looking at kelp for methane production, the American Gas Association, hardly a wild-eyed utopian group of tree huggers, estimated somewhere near 23 quads (23 quadrillion Btu) a year of methane from kelp just from the California coast. (106) If the kelp was first fermented to make alcohol and the remaining mash was then fermented a second time for methane, to be used primarily for alcohol plant energy, about a
third of that energy would be recovered as alcohol. This might be almost 90 billion gallons of fuel from the California Coast alone.
The remaining two-thirds of the energy as methane would provide all the alcohol plant process energy plus a huge surplus of gas/
electricity. Thats roughly half of the transportation fuel the U.S.
currently uses per year. Add to this the potential production from the Oregon and Washington Coasts, the nutrient-saturated dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico, and possibly the outflow from Chesapeake Bay.
Looks like weve replaced all the transportation fuel for the U.S. just from marine algae, as well as the lions share of natural gas and electricity, as well. All without using a square foot of farmland.
So then all wed have to do would be to nationalize the now-useless oil pipelines to send some of the alcohol and all of the digested liquid kelp to fertilize our nations agricultural heartland. Of course, building such kelp farms would be a massive undertaking, but if building 41,000 miles of highways to carry our vehicles or mounting a $500 billion war for oil in Iraq doesnt intimidate our Congress, then neither should a project like this which neatly solves many problems in one stroke.
REFERENCES (102). Cheng.
(103). United Nations Environmental Program, GEO: Global Environment Outlet Year Book 2004/2005, www.unep.org/GEO/pdfs/GEO%20YEARBOOK%202004%20(ENG).pdf, as referenced in Janet Ralof, Dead Waters, Science News Online 165:23, June 5, 2004 (November 10, 2006).
(104). Glen Martin, Sea life in Peril Plankton Vanishing; Usual Seasonal Influx of Cold Water Isnt Happening, San Francisco Chronicle, July 12, 2005, Sec. A1.
(105). Martin.
(106). Robert Hodam, Energy Farming (California Energy Commission, 1978).
New and Significant Information 3.15.1 Fuel Cycle 3.15.1.1 Uranium Fuel Cycle 5
The uranium fuel cycle consists of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium 6
hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation 7
of radioactive materials, and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to
8 uranium fuel cycle activities. Section 4.14.1 of the 2024 LR GEIS describes in detail the generic 9
potential impacts of the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium 10 fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes (NRC 2024-TN10161).
The nuclear power plants and nuclear power is NOT CARBON-FREE. Nuclear power also generates RADIOACTIVE CARBON-14, trillions of curies of it.
Page 3-203 3.15.1.2.2 Renewables Combination Alternative 1
As stated in Appendix D, Section D.4.12.3 of the 2024 LR GEIS (NRC 2024-TN10161)
(under 2
Renewable Alternatives), the fuel cycles for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, and 3
geothermal are difficult to define. This is because the associated natural resources exist 4
regardless of any effort to harvest them for electricity production. Impacts from the presence or 5
absence of these renewable energy technologies are often difficult to determine (NRC 2024-6 TN10161).
Amazing. Renewable technologies are not glaringly bad for living ecosystems/
human beings like the obvious health risks associated with nuclear power and fossil fuels.
New and significant information:
4.3 Recommendation The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of LR 25 for Diablo Canyon are not so great that preserving the option of LR for energy-planning 26
decision-makers would be unreasonable.
The adverse environmental impacts are great and the licenses should not be renewed.
Three nuclear reactors melted down at Fukushima in 2011 (Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit
- 3) with three exploding (Unit 1, Unit 3 and Unit 4) and, in the case of reactor #3, it was MOX fuel that was spread throughout our atmosphere, with some particles landing on the arctic ice (and in Seattle and elsewhere). Unit 4 contained a spent fuel pool that exploded. Three of the reactor cores are leaking hot radionuclides into the Pacific Ocean forever. That heated Pacific Ocean water passes through the Bering Strait and melts the Arctic ice. Videos show Arctic ice melting from the Bering Strait, west side of the Arctic ice sheet in 2012 and on. 2012 is also when Greenland melted from all the atmospheric heat released at Fukushima.
2011-2012 is also when the jet stream stalled and has been affected to this day from the heat consequences of GE American Mark 1 nuclear reactors in Japan that exploded. This should have closed down the industry but instead the cover-up began. Radiation monitors were turned off and food, water and product radiation acceptable levels were raised. There was then a push for Americans to consume MORE electricity, keep everything plugged in 24/7 (including your new Microsoft X-Box) and living off-grid has been violently discouraged. And now we have AI and cryptocurrency and the threat that there wont be enough power. Lets regain our senses and use renewables and alcohol as fuel and shut down the heat and cancer producing nuclear industry.
All nuke plants (and some other plants as well) take in water and dump it back out hotter into our oceans, rivers and lakes. In the case of nuke plants, radionuclides are present in that water. Our earth is a closed loop system. The hot, radioactive water migrates to the ice and melts it. Plus radionuclides give off heat (some forever) as they decay. The CO2 traps the heat but THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS THE HEAT GENERATOR. How many plants use water to cool off their systems, using our precious water as a heat sink and a dumping ground for their chemical and radioactive waste?
Diablo Canyon is allowed to release water and effluent up to 25 degrees F warmer than the intake temperature during normal operations and up to 50 degrees F warmer ONE HOUR/DAY during demussleing. Over the years, the intake temperature rises and so does the outflow temperature. THERE IS NO CAP on how hot the intake temperature can be. The policy just allows the 25 degrees F to 50 degrees F increase over the intake temperature.
That sets up a vicious cycle to continuously increase the temperature of our oceans. And that is what is happening as the ice is melting at the polar caps of our planet.
To get the entire world-wide oceanic, lake, river, stream picture:
Boiling water reactors operate at 285 degrees C = 545 degrees F Pressure water reactors operate at 315 degrees C = 599 degrees F Nuclear fission power plants: 440 plants world-wide (not counting the military) operating 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />s/day, 7 days/week, 365 days/year with planned outages every 18-21 months to re-fuel and then start the radioactive heat process back up. All to boil water at 212 degrees F to produce steam that turns a turbine.
Its like cutting butter with a chainsaw.
Nuclear fusion:
150,000,000 degrees C is 270,000,032 degrees F. They have put a sun on planet earth and they call it a "clean energy source"!
Its time to stop heating this planet. Do not re-license Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2.
APPENDIX F 1
2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS PG&E assumed that 99 percent of the population within the emergency planning zone (EPZ) 42 would evacuate (PG&E 2023-TN9822). This assumption is more conservative relative to the 43 NUREG-1150 study (NRC 1990-TN525), which assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the 44 population within the 10-mile EPZ. While PG&E did not perform a sensitivity analysis on the 45 time to declaration of an emergency, PG&E conservatively added an additional 30 minutes to the evacuation times from the Diablo Canyon evacuation time estimate study, as discussed in 1
ER Section G.3.6, to account for processing time by offsite officials within the SAMA 2
evaluations.
3 PG&E assumed that the delay time for the population to evacuate following a declaration of an 4
emergency is 101 minutes for the first cohort and 176 minutes for the second cohort (PG&E 2023-5 TN9822). PG&E performed a sensitivity analysis assuming the delay time was doubled for each 6
cohort. The population dose was reported to increase by 2 percent, and the offsite economic cost 7
was reported to be unchanged. Given the small or negligible change in the population dose and 8
offsite economic cost, the NRC staff concludes that the assumption related to the delay time to 9
evacuate is reasonable and acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.
Robert J Budnitz from the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Commission proposed to write ahead of time a press release that states everything is safe in case of a nuclear accident at Diablo Canyon. He does not seem to be planning for an evacuation. I watched the meeting live. I just now watched the video re-play and that part has been spliced out of the video.
Table F-7 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Cost/Benefit Analysis for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant(a)
Look at all the money we would save if these plants were closed. If there is LR, look at all the money we have to pay in addition to the already high costs as PG&E rate payers and other California rate payers. Diablo Canyon costs are being spread throughout California to customers of other utility companies besides PG&E.
NUREG-1437 Supplement 62 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 62 Regarding License Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 October 2024