— Hearing on Senate Bill 968 Diablo Canyon, June 22

Hearing
Senator Bill Monning’s Senate Bill 968 on Diablo Canyon
Wednesday, June 22
California Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
State Capitol, Room 437

The hearing starts at 1:30 pm.

The public may attend and give testimony on opposition to this bill.

Listen to this hearing )

Mike Gatto, Chair

S.B.No. 968 Monning.Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 powerplant.

http://autl.assembly.ca.gov/hearings

For the committee members and contact info:

http://autl.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff

Committee Phone: (916) 319-2083

Sue Kateley,
Chief Consultant
Email: sue.kateley@asm.ca.gov

Edmond Cheung,
Senior Consultant
Email: edmond.cheung@asm.ca.gov

Heather Hamp,
Committee Secretary
Email:  heather.hamp@asm.ca.gov

 

 

Advertisements

— SB 968 approved unanimously by Senate; first reading in Assembly June 2

SB 968 passed the California Senate on June 1. It is now in the state Assembly and has had a first reading.

There were a few text changes but not those requested by Mothers for Peace. Interestingly,  a provision for public hearings has been eliminated from the bill.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB968

Information on bill history :  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB968

— Action Alert from Mothers for Peace on SB 968

Update June 6: SB 968 passed the California Senate on June 1. It is now in the state Assembly and has has a first reading. Information on bill history :  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB968

ACTION ALERT FROM MOTHERS FOR PEACE

PLEASE CALL, WRITE, OR FAX YOUR STATE SENATOR

http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ – follow link and enter zip code

VOTE NO – SB 968/THE MONNING BILL

SB968 would require Pacific Gas and Electric Company to submit an assessment of the economic impact for the regions surrounding Diablo Canyon that could occur if the Diablo Canyon power plant Units 1 and 2 were to temporarily or permanently shut down.

In light of the recent heavy push by The Breakthrough Institute, unions, and others to keep the plant open until 2044-2045, we feel that this bill will unintentionally become an organizing tool and “hit piece” for those asking for re-licensing.  Please write, phone, fax or email your state senator – tell them: VOTE NO!

  The bill is still unbalanced:   The inclusion of the words “beneficial” and “net economic effects” does begin the process of balancing the bill but that is where that “balance” ends.  The language of the bill itself still focuses on adverse economic effects.

  “Mitigation” is not clearly defined:  The terms “mitigate” and “mitigation” must be clearly defined or examples of the types of mitigation be described “Mitigation would include exploring the creation of jobs for which some employees at Diablo might be qualified or for which they could be offered training. Mitigation would also include the assessment of alternative renewable forms of energy that might be added at the Diablo Canyon site or at other locations in San Luis Obispo County or nearby regions.”

  There is no call to also study a successful closure:  SONGS was shut down unexpectedly thereby creating a lot of problems that would not have been present in a planned closure.  For a truly balanced study one must also look at another NPP that was “successfully” shut down.  In the State of California, that NPP would be Rancho Seco in Sacramento.  All of the waste is being stored on-site in dry-cask storage and the land around the closed plant is now a solar farm.  There are many lessons to be learned from Rancho Seco and a study of that closure must be included.

  The bill is incomplete; it does not direct a study of what happens in case of an accident: There are two ways Diablo Canyon will shut down.

A planned closure:

  • In 2024-2025 if relicensing does not occur and the plant closes when the current licenses expire

         In 2044-2045 if relicensing does occur.

An unplanned closure:

         The State Lands Commission denies Diablo Canyon land use permits and the plant must close.

         The CA State Water Board rules that Diablo Canyon is no longer exempt from the Clean Air Act and can no longer use Once Through Cooling.  The cost of building cooling towers could cause PG&E to close Diablo like SCGE did at San Onofre because of the generators.

         There is a larger than design basis earthquake that causes a radioactive release, spent-fuel pool fire or, worst case scenario, causes a melt-down in the containment.

Why would one look only at one scenario of early closure and not also look at the cost that an accident would cause?   If the County of San Luis Obispo and surrounding regions are to be able to use the information that this study would provide, they need ALL of the information not just some of it.

To determine who your senator is, go to http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ and enter your zip code.

 

— Mothers for Peace asks Sen. Monning for changes to Diablo Canyon bill, gets no response

Update June 6: SB 968 passed the California Senate on June 1. It is now in the state Assembly and has had a first reading. There were a few text changes but not those requested by Mothers for Peace. Interestingly,  a provision for public hearings has been eliminated from the bill. Information on bill history :  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB968

Letter from San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace to California Senator Bill Monning May 19, 2016. The proposed text changes to Senate Bill 968 are here.

Senator Monning has not responded. SB 968 was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday, May 27, and goes to the full California Senate for approval this week.

May 19, 2016

Senator Bill Monning
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB 968

Senator Monning & staff;

We would like to try, one more time, to find a way to support rather than oppose SB 968. Below you will find our thoughts on the bill and what we believe it will take for us to retract our opposition. Please note that this comes from SLO Mothers for Peace; we do not speak for the other 30 organizations that have signed on to the opposition letter. When changes are made that we deem viable we will share them with the other signers to see if those changes will change their stance on the bill.

The inclusion of the words “beneficial” and “net economic effects” in the Legislative Digest and in the first part of the body does begin the process of balancing the bill but that is where that “balance” ends. Below we will point out where the language of the bill itself needs to be changed to reflect the balance that is necessary to ensure that this is a true study of all of the economic impacts, adverse and beneficial. In light of the recent heavy push by The Breakthrough Institute, unions, and others to keep the plant open until 2044-2045, we feel these changes are necessary in order to ensure that this study does not unintentionally become an organizing tool and “hit piece” for those asking for re-licensing.

The following is a list of changes and/or additions we would need to see in order to withdraw our opposition to SB 968:

1) 712.5 (a) (1) There is an incongruity in SECTION 1, line 6. It states: “. . .for the region surrounding the County of San Luis Obispo,. . .” Does this mean that the study is only for Monterey and Santa Barbara Counties? Shouldn’t it read something like, “. . .the County of San Luis Obispo, the region surrounding the County of San Luis Obispo, and the state as a whole. . .”?

2) 712.5 (a) (1) Line 15 “. . .for the state and local jurisdictions to consider in order to mitigate the adverse economic impact of a shutdown. . .”. It should also call for enhancement the positive economic effects.

3) 712.5 (b) (1) – “Estimates of any decreases in local or state tax revenues, decreases in workforce populations, losses in indirect or induced economies, and potential impacts to ratepayers from an early shutdown.” We would also like to see something like: “Estimates of any increases in local or state tax revenues, increases in workforce populations, gains in indirect or induced economies, and potential impacts to ratepayers from a transition to reliance on new sources of energy generation from renewables, above and beyond existing state mandates, to replace the power from Diablo Canyon upon its closure.”

4) 712.5 (b) (2) – “A review of the economic impacts that affected the region surrounding the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.” SONGS was shut down unexpectedly thereby creating a lot of problems that would not have been present in a planned closure. For a truly balanced study one must also look at another NPP that was “successfully” shut down. In the State of California, that NPP would be Rancho Seco in Sacramento. All of the waste is being stored on-site in dry-cask storage and the land around the closed plant is now a solar farm. There are many lessons to be learned from Rancho Seco and a study of that closure must be included.

5) 712.5 (b) (4) – “Identification of any contingency plans that could mitigate the adverse economic impact of a shutdown to state and local jurisdictions, the local workforce, and entities receiving enhanced tax revenue.” This is, again, focused to the negative. We believe it should read: “. . .plans that could mitigate the adverse economic impact and enhance the positive economic impact of a shutdown. . .” Also, the terms “mitigate” and “mitigation” must be clearly defined or examples of the types of mitigation be described “Mitigation would include exploring the creation of jobs for which some employees at Diablo might be qualified or for which they could be offered training. Mitigation would also include the assessment of alternative renewable forms of energy that might be added at the Diablo Canyon site or at other locations in San Luis Obispo County or nearby regions.”

6) There are two ways Diablo Canyon will shut down.

  • A planned closure:
    • In 2024-2025 if relicensing does not occur and the plant closes when the current licenses expire
    • In 2044-2045 if relicensing does occur.
  • An unplanned closure:
    • The State Lands Commission denies Diablo Canyon land use permits and the plant must close.
    • The CA State Water Board rules that Diablo Canyon is no longer exempt from the Clean Air Act and can no longer use Once Through Cooling. The cost of building cooling towers could cause PG&E to close Diablo like SCGE did at San Onofre because of the generators.
    • There is a larger than design basis earthquake that causes a radioactive release, spent-fuel pool fire or, worst case scenario, a melt-down in the containment.

Why would one look only at one scenario of early closure and not also look at the cost that an accident would cause? If the County of SLO and its surrounding areas are to be able to use the information that this study would provide, they need ALL of the information not just some of it.

We still have concerns about the selection process of an “independent third party”. However, we do understand that there may be no alternative to that selection process other than as outlined in the bill.

There are also some word changes here and there that would also balance the bill. We have attached a copy of the bill as we would like to see it with our recommendations in bolded, italicized blue font.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

SLO Mothers for Peace Board

Elaine Holder             Sherry Lewis

Lucy J Swanson           Nancy Norwood

Linda Seeley               Molly Johnson

Jill ZamEk

Cc: Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson
Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian

———————————————————————————

SLO Mothers for Peace          PO Box 3608   San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 https://mothersforpeace.org

 

— Letter to California Committee on Energy in opposition to SB 968

From San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace:

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace is one of 30 organizations going on record as opposing SB 968. That bill as proposed would focus on the adverse economic impacts to be expected when the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant shuts down. It fails to look at the advantages of plant closure or at opportunities for creating jobs by investing in more sources of renewable energy.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles Southern California Federation of Scientists
Food and Water Watch
Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice Desert Protection Society
Committee to Bridge the Gap
Azul
Ecological Options Network
CodePink Women for Peace, Golden Gate Chapter
No Nukes Action Team
Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS)
Nuclear Hotseat
Nuclear Watch South
People of Faith for Justice
Residents Organized for Safe Energy (ROSE) Rocketdyne Cleanup Coalition
San Francisco Occupy Forum Environmental Working Group San Onofre Safety
Sunflower Alliance
Teens Against Toxins

Women for: Orange County
Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Energy and Safe Jobs Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Santa Cruz Green Party of San Luis Obispo
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Public Citizen
Northern Chumash Tribal Council
Greenpeace

March 23, 2016

The Honorable Ben Hueso, Chair
And Members
Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications California Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: SB 968 (Monning) – Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant – OPPOSE

Dear Chair Hueso and Committee Members:

SB968 would require Pacific Gas and Electric Company to submit an assessment of the adverse economic impact for the region surrounding the County of San Luis Obispo that could occur if the Diablo Canyon power plant Units 1 and 2 were to temporarily or permanently shut down. We urge a “no” vote.

Background

Diablo Canyon represents one of the greatest environmental, public health, and economic threats to much of California. Each reactor contains 1000 times the long-lived radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. The plant was built based on the assertion that there were no active earthquake faults within 30 kilometers. We now know there are at least FOUR faults, one of which is just a few hundred meters from the plant. The ground motion from an earthquake on any of those faults could be far greater than the plant was built to withstand. Just as at Fukushima, the fifth anniversary of which is now, a quake larger than the plant was designed for could release massive radioactivity and devastate a significant part of our state.

The original construction began in 1967. Diablo was designed and licensed to operate for 40 years. Unit 1 was licensed in 1984 and Unit 2 in 1985. Some of the equipment is already over 40 years old. Nuclear proponents are pushing to extend operations for decades more. The risks are just too great. We need to quickly transition from Diablo to renewables, and it must not be allowed to run beyond its design life and original license period.

Reasons for Opposition to Bill

  1. The bill is unbalanced. It orders a study of the adverse economic impacts of a plant shutdown. It does not consider the benefits of such a shutdown. Intentionally or not, the bill’s provisions pave the way for approval to extend Diablo Canyon operations beyond its original design life. As written, the bill does not address the adverse environmental, health, and economic impacts of a meltdown or other types of radiation releases.
  2. The bill is conceptually flawed. When Diablo closes—as it must at some point—that isn’t the end of the story. The electricity produced by Diablo will be replaced by new power sources, many of them renewables. These will produce jobs and tax revenues and other economic, environmental and health benefits. The issue is not simply what will be lost by a shutdown, but also what will be gained.
  3. There is no need for the requested analysis. PG&E in 2013 sponsored a study of the economic impacts of the plant. The number of jobs and the taxes paid are already well known. The requested new report is redundant and unnecessary, and would impose on ratepayers an expense for no benefit.
  4. We recognize that the idea, briefly referenced in the bill, of also studying mitigation measures for job and tax loss may seem at first glance attractive, but the bill doesn’t do anything substantive in that regard, and the harmful aspects of the rest of the bill in terms of aiding in the push for continued operation beyond the original license period far outweighs that.
  1. The real need, which is not addressed in the bill, is for the state (e.g., the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission) to commence planning for the transition from Diablo Canyon to renewables. The licenses for Diablo expire 8-9 years from now. Thoughtful planning for transitioning to new renewables needs to begin now. This would be a triple win: eliminating the risk of a nuclear disaster in California, building up more renewables, and the jobs and other economic benefits from them. But the bill does nothing to get the state on the path to that transition.
  2. The bill would have PG&E identify contractors to perform the study, from which the CPUC would select a supposedly “independent 3rd party” to do the analysis. Given the troubled nature of the CPUC, the history of a too-cozy relationship with PG&E, the controversy over the illegal ex parte communications with PG&E, and the CPUC’s weak oversight of PG&E that contributed to the San Bruno disaster, the prospect remains high that the CPUC would merely select whomever PG&E wants. We note that a similar process resulted in a failure to select a truly “independent 3rd party” to conduct a review of PG&E’s proposal for an exemption from the Water Board’s Once Through Cooling (OTC) Policy. The Water Board was supposed to arrange for an “independent 3rd party” for this purpose, to be paid for by PG&E, but PG&E’s influence resulted in the selection of the Bechtel Corporation, which had in fact helped PG&E construct Diablo Canyon and which produced a report backing PG&E. The Bechtel report was called into question by many observers.
  3. The bill fails to put the state on record that Diablo Canyon should not run for decades longer than it was originally designed and licensed.

In summary the analysis the bill calls for is unnecessary and unbalanced and could amount to a state-ordered piece of advocacy for forces pushing for Diablo Canyon to operate far beyond its original design and license life. This could have great negative impacts on California. We recognize that this is not the intent of the author or co-authors, but nonetheless conclude there would be serious unintended consequences of the bill. We urge a “NO” vote.

Sincerely,

Azul, Marce Gutiérrez-Graudiņš

CodePink Women for Peace, Golden Gate Chapter, Cynthia Papermaster

Committee to Bridge the Gap, Catherine Lincoln

Desert Protection Society, Donna Charpied

Ecological Options Network
Mary Beth Brangan and James Heddle

Food and Water Watch, Wenonah Hauter

Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice, Bradley Angel

Green Party of San Luis Obispo, Peggy Koteen

Greenpeace, Jim Riccio

No Nukes Action Team, Chizu Hamada

Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Fred Collins

Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS), David Kraft

Nuclear Hotseat, Libbe HaLevy

Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Diane D’Arrigo

Nuclear Watch South, Glenn Carroll

People of Faith for Justice, Richard Kurrash

Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, Denise Duffield

Public Citizen, Allison Fisher

Residents Organized for Safe Energy (ROSE), Gene Stone

Rocketdyne Cleanup Coalition, Cindi Gortner

San Francisco Occupy Forum Environmental Working, Group Cynthia Papermaster

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Jane Swanson

San Onofre Safety, Donna Gilmore

Southern California Federation of Scientists, Sheldon C. Plotkin, Ph.D.

Sunflower Alliance, Shoshanna Wäscher

Teens Against Toxins, Davis Gortner

Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), Marylia Kelley

West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Energy and Safe Jobs, Janice Schroeder

Women for: Orange County, Judy Curry

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Santa Cruz Sandy Silver

https://mothersforpeace.org/data/2016/2016-03-23-letter-to-california-committee-on-energy-in-opposition-to-sb-968-1

— California Senate Bill 968 supporting PG&E’s Diablo Canyon faces sharp opposition

Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant faces increasing calls for closure. It is the only power generating nuclear plant currently operating in California. Its problems have been ongoing from the beginning. It is at daily risk from the four earthquake faults in the vicinity. The many frightening safety violations there by Pacific Gas and Electric and the NRC whistleblower exposé that the plant is out of compliance have caused alarm bells. Recent comments by Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom on the California Lands Commission mean Diablo Canyon’s future is being questioned in Sacramento.

But in February, Sen. Bill Monning introduced Senate Bill 968, co-written by Sen. Katcho Achadjian (San Luis Obispo) and Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (Santa Barbara-Ventura), calling for a study of the adverse economic effects of closing Diablo Canyon. Many profit by its continued operation. The study would be funded by the public. The bill and its unbalanced study has encountered strong opposition from environmental and health organizations. Though Monning has now amended the bill to add ‘beneficial’ economic effects from a closure to the investigation, this seems merely a cosmetic change. The intent of the authors and this bill is clear.

Sen. Monning and co-authors state they want an independent evaluation, but the California Public Utilities Commission – an agency notorious for biasing results and ignoring unwanted conclusions – will oversee the selection. Furthermore in 2011, Monning as Assemblyman helped choose, and then affirmed findings of, the California Council on Science and Technology on Smart Meters. CCST was a supposedly independent group, but flaws in the review panel, the data, and the report were exposed by state health officials, scientists, and medical experts. However, Monning stood firm, despite what was widely known about Smart Meter problems, despite formal comments to the CPUC on overbilling and health issues, and despite public testimony to the Commission and Monning’s own office of the harm being inflicted by Smart Meters. CCST’s pro-industry report gave cover to PG&E and other utility companies for the continued roll-out of the very dangerous and controversial meters.

Bill Monning has proven a reliable supporter for utility company initiatives and Democratic Party positions and backers, despite his former position as Executive Director for the International Physicians for Social Responsibility. The San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles Chapters of Physicians for Social Responsibility called their decision to oppose this bill and its author “painful” because of Monning’s previous affiliation with their group, but they felt they had no choice.

PSR reluctantly has concluded that this bill would be at variance with the fundamental principle “do no harm”. By calling on PG&E to submit an analysis of the supposedly adverse economic impacts of closing the plant at the end of its designed life with no discussion of impacts of a Fukushima-type disaster were the plant to keep running, the study would amount to a piece of advocacy for continued operation of this dangerous facility.

Each Diablo unit contains 1000 times a long-lived radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Each year Diablo produces enough plutonium for hundreds of nuclear weapons as well as waste toxic for half a million years.

The plant was built based on the assumption there were no active earthquake faults within 30 kilometers. Now we know there are 4. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

The public should not be forced to pay as taxpayers or ratepayers for a wasteful, unbalanced, and unnecessary report that may have the effect of implicitly pushing for the continuation of these risks. Thank you.

Monning: “One slight correction on the opposition testimony. We do remain open to working with them. This would not be a study conducted by PG&E. It would be supported by an independent study.”

The economic and environmental damage that Diablo Canyon inflicts on San Luis Obispo County now and on the ocean now is not considered by Sen. Monning and Co.. And “a catastrophe waiting to happen” decimating all industry and population centers within many miles is simply not a part of their equation, economic or otherwise – a startling realization. It is especially surprising that Senator Jackson co-authored this bill, since her district does not have the economic gain that SLO County enjoys, and both of the counties she represents — Santa Barbara and Ventura — would suffer terrible impacts if Diablo Canyon underwent an accident. Ventura County was impacted by the Santa Susanna Field Laboratory’s multiple nuclear accidents starting in the 1950s. Why would Sen. Jackson risk more nuclear danger?

Given Sen. Monning and co-authors’ intent for his bill, it is doubtful that an evaluative group would do anything other than rubberstamp the original goal — to show that closing Diablo Canyon would cause adverse economic impacts to San Luis Obispo County (and also, to PG&E investors) – and thereby slow any process to close the plant.

When Monning states that the bill’s authors remain open to working with the groups in opposition, one thing is clear: for the authors, these environmental and health groups are the opposition. The authors are against reason, against the science, and against public safety.

Below is an unofficial transcript of the May 2 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. The links to the video are here:http://senate.ca.gov/media-archive – Videos, May 2, 2016 Appropriations Comm hearing

http://vod.senate.ca.gov/videos/2016/20160502_Appropriations_high.mp4

Appropriations Committee hearing, May 2, 2016

SB 968 goes from 10:20 – 17:28 on the video.

SB 968 – Diablo Canyon

Sen. Monning: Good morning, Chair, members.

Senate Bill 968 requires an economic assessment of the adverse and beneficial impacts that could occur in the event that the Diablo nuclear power plant shuts down. The economic assessment is an appropriate use of ratepayer funds, because allr atepayers have benefited from the energy generated from Diablo Canyon. There are past examples of ratepayers-funded studies only benefiting a single region.

Even if there is disagreement on this point, the actual impact to ratepayers will be de minimis.

San Luis Obispo’s economy is heavily reliant on Diablo Canyon which is why an independent accurate assessment to help identify ways to mitigate the impacts is indeed prudent.

I along with Asm. Achadjian have a duty to protect the region that we represent from economic harm, and SB 968 is a means for the San Luis Obispo community to plan and discuss in the event of the plant’s closure. I recognize this is a candidate for suspense and would urge an aye vote at the appropriate time. And we have a couple of witnesses in support. Thank you.

In support:

1 — Derek ? on behalf of the San Luis Coastal Unified School District. This is a school district that encompasses the power plant and surrounding region and so it’s really impacted by the local economy that’s brought to the area by PG&E and the power plants.

This nexus we think with state funding here is the fact that when the local economy becomes depressed because of a sudden instance like the closure of a power plant, we’d see an augmentation in state funding required under the local control funding formula and our unique funding system here in California. So we think that some point, there could bee a big augmentation devoted to this very school district and surrounding area, given its $80 million dollar annual operating budget and the fact that it might fall out of basic aid status. And so we urge you to support the bill.

2 — Good morning, Chair, members. Karen Lang (?) of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. This county collects almost $26 million dollars in property taxes from the existence of the plant. Obviously that goes to all the tax entities including the school district. With concerns about any sudden or over time closure of the plant, and so a third party analysis would be really helpful we think and we urge your aye vote when the time comes.

Witness in support:

In opposition:

1 — I am Molly Johnson. I am here to present the opposition of more than 30 environmental and other health organizations including Public Citizen, Greenpeace, LA and San Francisco Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Northern Band Chumash Council

We remain troubled by the bill’s one-sided nature although it is getting better, and we are working with to continue that, Uit still focuses on adverse economic rather than a balanced, and we would like to it more balanced.

We do see that there has been an amount put to the bill which we did not see until just a little bit ago. So even though these matters are now touched upon by the staff report, we feel that this still is a wasteful expense unless it is a balanced bill. Thank you.

2 — Good morning. I am Tabez Zadi (sp?) and am appearing on behalf of the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles Chapters of Physicians for Social Responsibility which has long worked to address nuclear risks. And Sen. Monning once served as Executive Director of PSR’s parent international physician’s organization.

And PSR’s opposition to his bill on Diablo Canyon is thus painful and hasn’t been entered into lightly. PSR reluctantly has concluded that this bill would be at variance with the fundamental principle “do no harm”. By calling on PG&E to submit an analysis of the supposedly adverse economic impacts of closing the plant at the end of its designed life with no discussion of impacts of a Fukushima-type disaster were the plant to keep running, the study would amount to a piece of advocacy for continued operation of this dangerous facility.

Each Diablo unit contains 1000 times a long-lived radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Each year Diablo produces enough plutonium for hundreds of nuclear weapons as well as waste toxic for half a million years.

The plant was built based on the assumption there were no active earthquake faults within 30 kilometers. Now we know there are four. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

The public should not be forced to pay as taxpayers or ratepayers for a wasteful, unbalanced, and unnecessary report that may have the effect of implicitly pushing for the continuation of these risks. Thank you.

Monning: One slight correction on the opposition testimony. We do remain open to working with them. This would not be a study conducted by PGE&. It would be supported by an independent study. With that again, I would request at the appropriate time an aye vote.

——————-

More information:

http://mothersforpeace.org/blog/29-gaps-in-excellence-in-2014

http://nonukesca.net/?p=539

http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2015-03-diablo-pge-secretly-used-wrong-data-for-safety-equipment#sthash.8DQl1ReI.dpuf

https://healfukushima.org/2016/02/29/take-action-on-diablo-canyon-npp-tell-california-state-lands-commission-to-do-full-ceqa-review/

http://mothersforpeace.org/blog/topics-to-address-at-august-5-2015-nrc-meeting-in-slo

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/ap-exclusive-expert-calls-diablo-canyon-shutdown/ng8Tj/

http://lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/mailbag/hartmann-nuke-risks-oil-trains/article_9f1703e4-4a34-5f16-997c-6be468a26bc9.html