By Camas Frank
The Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission held two public meetings on Aug. 5, at the San Luis Obispo Marriot Hotel with Pacific Gas & Electric on the hot seat once again.
There to address PG&E’s license renewal application for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, the NRC’s representatives were in town to hear from locals, specifically which environmental issues should be included in the scope of review.
However, as organizers reminded the audience, scoping an environmental review for renewal does not include issues of plant safety and daily operations, which are handled by the plant’s onsite inspectors, or the original permitting process that allowed the site.
The company applied for a license renewal back in 2009 to extend the current operating licenses of Diablo Canyon for an additional 20 years, but put their application on hold in 2011, while seismic studies were conducted on offshore fault lines that could affect the plant, which sits on the coast, just south of Point Buchon. The NRC restarted the federal portion of the license renewal in April 2015.
For nearly three hours during the first meeting, at least 57 registered speakers gave 3-minute presentations to the more than 120 people in the audience, with much of their comments aimed at trying to impress each other as to the good or ills of nuclear power as a whole, rather than what the NRC was there to collect information on.
While still collecting written comments through Aug. 31, they’re looking specifically for feedback on the impacts of continuing plant operations to wildlife and fish, water and air quality, historic and cultural resources, taxes and community development, and social justice, as well as human health.
A relatively new group of activists calling itself, Californians for Green Nuclear Power, and attending their second NRC meeting since June, got up one after another in matching green T-shirts to show support for Diablo Canyon.
They insisted that the NRC broaden the scope of what they consider social justice and health impacts to consider the rise in fossil fuel use that would result if the plant shut down in the next two decades.
Given that PG&E is adamant that it has not yet decided whether to move forward with relicensing, the Greenies’ sentiments were as premature as the claims by anti-nuclear activists that abundant clean energy options stand ready to fill the gap.
In a statement prepared ahead of the meeting, PG&E spokesman Blair Jones explained the hoops the utility would need to jump through outside of the NRC before being relicensed.
“In order for the NRC to issue renewed licenses, the State of California has to determine that doing so is consistent with state environmental laws,” Jones said. “To consider this, PG&E must apply for and receive from the California Coastal Commission a coastal consistency determination, and potentially a coastal development permit.
“PG&E has not made a decision to move forward with the state’s process, as it continues to evaluate feedback on seismic research, as well as the steps needed to obtain state permitting approvals.”
With that lack of a decision in mind, John Geesman on behalf of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, lambasted the NRC for even holding the public meetings and restarting the licensing procedure before the State level hurdles were met.
“Decades ago I was on the committee responsible for vetting nuclear plant locations in California under [the California Environmental Quality Act],” he said. “I can tell you that the NRC should be held to the same standards that the State used in collecting thoughtful dialogue and real information. Three minutes per speaker with not enough time to hear everyone in the meeting is a poor format that is not designed to collect any meaningful information.”
