Diablo Canyon Shut Down Proposal – A Critical View (Updated)

Was3796364

Extreme Slow Motion Nuclear Phase-Out Proposed in California
“OK, Buddy, you have just 9 years to stop beating your wife.”

Opinion by James Heddle and Mary Beth Brangan
EON – The Ecological Options Network

We knew, with certainty, with arrogant certainty, that we were in control of the power we were playing with. This was the day . . . We learned we were wrong.
Sergiy Parashyn, Chernobyl engineer

Approval of a lease extension from the State Lands Commission is critical to ensure the continued operation of this clean energy [sic] facility to 2025.
Blair Jones, Diablo Canyon spokesman

Reprieve for PG&E & Diablo, Extended Risk for the Rest of Us
On June 21, 2016, a press release from Friends of the Earth exploded on the internet like a nuclear reaction going critical.

“Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to be shut down,” read the headline, “power replaced by renewables, efficiency, storage.”

Digital cheers went up around the net as congratulatory messages poured onto the list serves. The news was featured on outlets from the New York Times, Forbes and Bloomberg, to NPR.

“For Friends of the Earth…it’s a wonderful moment,” said FoE’s Damon Moglen on Democracy Now! His organization is a co-signer of the phase-out proposal.

“The fact that the sixth largest economy on the planet is saying no to nuclear power and is going to replace nuclear power with safer, cleaner, cheaper renewable energy is a tremendous message. And it really does put an end to this nonsense that somehow nuclear power has any role to play in the future. “

“On the macro level, this is huge,” wrote commentator Harvey Wasserman. “On the big picture level this has become a…defining national story proclaiming the death of nuke power. “

They’re both correct. Whatever its final fate, this ‘Proposal’ is an implicit acknowledgement that nuclear energy is neither ‘clean,’ nor ‘green,’ nor a solution to carbon-caused climate change. It is another sign of the inevitable, eventual demise of nuclear power. So, hats off to those who have produced a precedent-setting first draft of a template for a potential orderly transition to renewable energy.

However, reading the fine print yields quite a mixed message.

Critical Analysis
So, before popping the Champaign corks and swooning in post-nuclear euphoria, let’s take a closer, critical look at this much-vaunted ‘Proposal,’ its implications, and the process of its creation.

Dodging CEQA
Just days ahead of a California State Lands Commission (SLC) hearing at which a decision was to be made as to whether or not to require a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant’s continued operation in order to get SLC leases renewed, this self-selected body floated the ‘Joint Proposal’ to keep the plant running for nearly another decade without such a review.

Interesting timing. Forgotten in the excitement was the fact that just a week earlier the San Jose Mercury News had reported on PG&E entering federal court facing “13 criminal counts, including 12 charges that it violated pipeline safety regulations and one charge of obstructing a federal investigation into the lethal blast. The explosion and resulting fire killed eight people and destroyed 38 houses in one of the worst utility disasters in U.S. history.” The Merc also reported that the company had, “learned that a number of prospective jurors in the matter have an unfavorable view of PG&E.”

Would you want a company with that rap sheet running your local nuclear plant for 9 more years toward shutdown, with little incentive for investment in repairs or safety?

It’s unknown if the Commission would vote for the CEQA, but a CEQA review would most likely show PG&E’s Diablo Canyon could not comply with state laws governing water and could possibly force its closure in much fewer than nine years. The leases at issue expire in 2018 and 2019.

Snatching Capitulation from the Jaws of Victory?
This ‘agreement,’ between PG&E, Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environment California, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, and the Alliance For Nuclear Responsibility proposes to give PG&E another nine years – until 2025 – to shut the reactors at the termination of their licenses. Moreover it has no assurance of compliance. The ‘Parties’ also sent a joint letter to the Lands Commission arguing that their proposal obviates the requirement for a CEQA review.

The Proposal by a self-selected group of ‘Parties,’ some of them not even active participants in the opposition of Diablo Canyon, was kept secret from the many groups involved in the Nuclear Free California movement. It’s worth noting that the long-term advocacy group Mothers for Peace, is excluded from the ‘Parties.’ For many decades it has been Mothers for Peace who have represented the interests of the population of the most at-risk population, namely those living in close proximity to the plant.

Because of these facts, many long time environmentalists working for decades to close Diablo were shocked and outraged at this announcement of the proposed agreement.

Judge to abusive husband: “You have just 9 years to stop beating your wife.”
Husband: “Thanks, your honor. I was planning to leave her then, anyway.”

A first reading of the Joint Proposal and its accompanying letter reveals it to be a devil of a gamble, involving prolonged seismic risk, routine radioactive pollution & tons more waste and plutonium production for nearly a decade, not to mention perpetuation of PG&E mismanagement, exorbitant profits, and ratepayer extortion.

It is an attempt to forestall both the CEQA being called for by the California Lands Commission, and compliance with Once Through Cooling (OTC) requirements under the State Water Resources Control Board and California’s Clean Water Act. Both these requirements, if enforced, could have caused PG&E to shut down Diablo.

On the other hand, this gave the environmental organizations bargaining chips to help drive PG&E’s decision to drop its attempt to relicense Diablo for another 20 years of operation. The re-licensing request – even if only a bargaining ploy – most likely would have been supported by Gov. Jerry Brown and would surely have been rubber-stamped by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC.)

Is another nine years really necessary?
Here’s the bottom line question about this proposal: Does it really have to take so long for an orderly phase-out of Diablo, and a responsible transition to renewable sources? What about a few second opinions here? Do we really have to sign onto an all-or-nothing ‘agreement’ negotiated in secret behind closed doors?

Now that it’s been admitted on paper by PG&E that it will be less expensive (not to mention less risky) to shut Diablo down than to run it, does the best possible scenario for PG&E have to be the only desideratum? How about what’s best for people, marine life, the environment and California’s economy?

What about a real, transparent public dialogue about real alternatives? What about Germany’s example? What about if PG&E were to stop opposing roof-top solar, net metering, and feed-in tariffs? What about if it started counting existing solar sources not now included in its inventory of available power? What about hydro and geothermal sources in Imperial County? Like everybody’s grandmother used to say, ‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way.’  And maybe now PG&E has the will.

But this smells as if PG&E is setting us up for a my-way-or-the-highway extortion deal – ‘pay up or we’ll break your kneecaps.’ It’s a good guess that if a CEQA review is mandated, PG&E will take its radioactive fuel pellets and go home. Though, after the announcement of the ‘Proposal’, the SLC staff changed their recommendation to denying that a CEQA is necessary.

Do we really have to choose between 9 more years and 30? Do we even have 9 more years?
As wildfires rage currently causing ‘red flag’ conditions in three counties adjacent to Diablo Canyon, climate change-caused chaos is accelerating, adding increasing risk to its continued operating. Is it in compliance with fire safety regulations?

Faith Based Seismology
Despite the recent discovery that Diablo Canyon sits on the intersections of 13 active earthquake faults capable of releasing far more seismic force than the reactors were designed to withstand, the current Proposal completely ignores repeated dire predictions that a huge earthquake of devastating proportions is predicted any time now.

A June 23, 2016 article in The LA Times reminds us again about the immanent dangers of the overdue MAJOR earthquake, building from unreleased pressures between the two tectonic plates running along southern California’s coast.
[ See also: WHEN NOT IF: ‘Large-scale movement’ on San Andreas Fault, prompting fears of major quake ]

Not long ago, although one of NRC ‘s own Senior Inspectors reported that Diablo Canyon is out of compliance for earthquake resilience and called for the plant’s shutdown, the NRC failed to take action. The inspector was transferred out of state.

Just a year ago, in testimony before Senator Barbara Boxer’s Committee on Environment & Public Works, Daniel Hirsch, Nuclear Policy Analyst at UC Santa Cruz and Dr. Sam Blakeslee, a geophysicist, and former both California Assemblyman and Senator, revealed PG&E’s history of incompetence, fact-fudging and safety violations, the NRC’s history of lax regulation and new seismic risk discoveries. They called for a full adjudicatory re-licensing hearing for the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in San Luis Obispo, California.

[ See: Assessing Diablo’s Risks – Hirsch & Blakeslee, Republican Calls for Diablo Safety Probe, Nuclear Negligence at Diablo – Dan Hirsch]

Hirsch heads CommitteeToBridgeTheGap.org, long an effective watchdog agency in California. His testimony showed that from Humboldt Bay to Bodega Head to Diablo Canyon, PG&E has consistently chosen nuclear sites on earthquake faults, and the NRC has consistently failed to enforce its own seismic safety standards.
These very real dangers are magnified by the fragility of Diablo’s embrittled reactor vessel, the fifth worst in the U.S.

Even without natural disasters, incredibly high radiation readings from EPA’s Radnet in Bakersfield, California correlate to refueling incidences at Diablo Canyon, according to a recent report by FukuLeaks.org.

Why so long if PG&E admits running Diablo Canyon is no longer profitable?
Why does PG&E need nearly a decade just to ‘begin to plan’ as stated in the ‘agreement’ for replacing Diablo’s electricity output and ‘beginning’ to make a transition to renewables? Why just begin in 2018 with a long-overdue emphasis on efficiency?

Long time anti-nuclear activists wonder is it because the utility has been dragging its feet for so long, resisting and blocking efforts toward conservation, efficiency, rooftop solar, net metering and small, decentralized solar installations and wants to keep doing so? Not to mention its $30 million attempt in 2010, via Prop 16, to kill the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) movement in the cradle, and the utility’s decades-long battle to stamp out public power projects wherever they dare crop up.

Reskilling and retraining employees does take time, but again, is nine years necessary?

Estimates say that Diablo generates 6-9% of California’s electricity, and 20% within PG&E’s service territory. Three years ago, a chart developed by the late Barbara George, founder of WomensEnergyMatters.org, and based on the California Energy Commission’s own data, showed that – even without nuclear – California has a 40% excess energy generation capacity.

BGchart

To avoid rolling brown and black outs, redundancy in the system is required equal to the single largest source of electricity that could go out. The California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) calls this quantity of spinning reserve the “MSSC” (Maximum System Single Contingency) in its tariff. Right now, that largest single source is Diablo Canyon. This dependence on centralized generation of electricity is an obsolete business model that increases risk and reduces resilience in our age of climate chaos.

“Plan B”
The Joint Proposal is based on a study commissioned by FoE, titled Plan B: An Economic and Technical Case for Replacing Diablo Canyon with Greenhouse Gas Free Renewable, Efficiency and Energy Storage Resources addressed this and other issues. It found that “…when DCPP retires, the system requirement for spinning reserve will be cut approximately in half….”

On the basis of its 40-page analysis, Plan B concluded that it is:

…clearly in the interest of California ratepayers to replace DCPP with a renewable portfolio in an orderly transition on a timetable that will enable ratepayers to benefit from the renewable tax credits that may expire in 2020. These renewable resources will be additive to the recently adopted policy of a 50% RPS by 2030. It is also in ratepayer interests to overhaul and expand current energy efficiency programs to bear part of the load caused by retirement of DCPP.

Given the high cost of extending the NRC licenses, the high cost of continued operations at DCPP, and the risk of catastrophic failure of an aging plant on a seismically active site, the state of California needs to have a plan for retirement of DCPP. The plan must be to replace DCPP with zero GHG renewable energy and Energy Efficiency both of which are incremental to existing policy initiatives and programs. […T] time for that plan is now. P6

Rocky Mountain Institute’s seminal business book ‘Reinventing Fire’ used the state-of-the-art NREL ReEDS model to examine 80%-renewable US electricity in 2050, half centralized and half distributed, with no nuclear generation. The whole system turned out to cost the same as the alternatives (more-of-the-same, or new nuclear and “clean coal”, or centralized renewables) but to manage best all seven kinds of risk and to be the only known way to eliminate the risk of big cascading blackouts. According to Amory Lovins, their model included transmission and storage (only ~5–6% of renewable capacity needed).

As reported by The New York Times, ‘“Giant baseload nuclear power plants like Diablo Canyon cannot easily be taken offline, or ramped up and down, as system needs change,” said Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of the energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council and the group’s lead negotiator on the agreement. “This worsening problem is forcing the California grid operator to shut down low-cost renewable generation that could otherwise be used productively.”’

And, according to The Washington Post, “Geisha Williams, PG&E’s president for electricity, said in a conference call that the company concluded that ratepayers would not pay more for new renewable sources of energy than they would have paid to keep Diablo Canyon open. But she said that calculation took as a given the state’s renewable portfolio standard, which mandates sharp increases in -renewable-energy use and might have forced the reactors to run at as little as half their capacity.”

Writing in Forbes, celebrated energy expert Amory Lovins observes,

PG&E also agrees that removing the inflexible “must-run” nuclear output, which can’t easily and economically ramp down much, will help integrate more renewable power reliably into the grid. Midday solar, rather than being increasingly crowded out by continued nuclear overgeneration, will be able to supply more energy. As Germany found, integrating varying solar and windpower with steady “baseload” plants can present challenges for the opposite of the reason originally supposed: not because wind and solar power vary (demand varies even less predictably), but because “baseload” plants are too inflexible.
…[A]s PG&E acknowledges, market forces have made California’s last nuclear plant redundant. As customers use electricity more productively, solar roofs generate homebrew power, and competitive renewables flood the wholesale market, Diablo Canyon has become superfluous—and cheaper to close than to run.

Translation: Diablo Canyon’s continued operation is the MAIN IMPEDIMENT TO CALIFORNIA’S TRANSITION TO RENEWABLES. It should be shut down ASAP, not in nine years.

Artificial Life Support for a Dying Industry & Obsolete Utility Business Model
On the other hand, a precipitous closure, as happened with the leaking San Onofre plant, prompted replacing its power with gas, creating more greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to avoid any disruption to the flow of electricity. Not long afterwards, California experienced the catastrophic months-long Aliso Canyon methane leak.

The similarities of this proposal to the 2013 San Onofre nuclear plant shutdown deal are striking. Both have the lingering aroma exuded by Governor Jerry Brown. Both agreements were conducted out of public sight and basically pay nuclear utilities extortion money to just go away. The key difference is that this ‘Agreement’ establishes ONLY greenhouse gas free sources to replace Diablo Canyon nuclear power and the community and workers’ needs are being considered.

Trusting PG&E?
This proposed agreement attempts to replace DCPP with a renewable portfolio in an orderly transition on a timetable that PG&E agrees it can comply with. But, as noted above, can we trust PG&E? The San Bruno gas disaster is but one incident in a long pattern of dubious corporate behavior.

It is worth remembering that Governor Brown’s two female gate-keepers, Nancy McFadden and Dana Williamson, are both former PG&E executives. In fact, it was McFadden, during her tenure as a PG&E VP, who managed the campaign for Prop 16, a voter-defeated attempt to stop the formation of locally-owned utilities which were cutting into the utility’s monopoly. Now, the prospect of customers fleeing PG&E for CCA’s is a real concern, one that the “Proposal” even acknowledges.

Trusting the CPUC?
It is Gov. Brown who appoints all the members of the California Public Utilities Commission, CPUC, which will be making the decisions on the PG&E slow motion phase-out proposal. But the CPUC is now a discredited agency, itself currently fighting multiple charges of corruption, and whose continued existence is in question by the State Legislature. Why should we trust it with so many key decisions on this issue?

A May 2016 article in American Prospect reported on a recent National Renewable Energy Foundation study that found up to 74 percent of California’s total electricity usage could be generated by rooftop solar power – far more than other states. However California only derives 2.4 percent of its energy from rooftop solar systems. To meet that goal, or even Reinventing Fire’s recommended 50% distributed generation, California’s CPUC would have to implement additional regulatory reforms, such as establishing statewide interconnection standards that allow Californians to connect to the grid no matter where they live, and clarifying the solar system installation permitting process to eliminate hidden fees.

With a cooperative CPUC undoing all impediments to the energy transition, couldn’t PG&E quickly sell storage to rooftop solar owners and rapidly replace its outdated business model, like Green Mountain Energy has done? Green Mountain Power changing the home energy storage game

Is this a done deal?
No, not by a long shot. And it should NOT be – even though it looks like the fix is in.

Backroom deals, conducted in secret, excluding key stakeholders, should not be the standard for creation of public policy. Consideration of this proposal should not deter the SLC from doing a rigorous CEQA review, and compliance with California’s Once Through Cooling regulations have been addressed.

The Proposal is full of wiggle-room conditionalities that might let PG&E off the hook. And given their track record, the public needs to guard against a scenario such as that advanced by Indian Point nuclear plant owners who continue operating their deteriorating plant without a license.

Is this a good deal? And for whom, exactly?
It’s most of all good for PG&E, because it protects on-going profits from Diablo Canyon for nine more years and mandates ‘full cost recovery’ of all the company’s expenditures involved in its license-extension applications to the NRC, seismic and decommissioning studies and transition costs past, present and future.

It’s not good for the PG&E ratepayers, already footing the second highest utility rates in the country, who will ultimately have to pay the bills for the company’s ‘full cost recovery’ AND another nine years of Diablo Canyon profits and risks.

It is good for the Inside-the-Beltway ‘Big Green’ groups like FoE and NRDC and their local allies, who can claim a great victory for environmentalism.

It’s not good for the regional resident population, who will have to continue to live another nine years with the health effects of continuous routine radioactive emissions from the plant, and the looming, possibly catastrophic, seismic risks of an overdue major earthquake and tsunami. Plus another nine years worth of tons of lethal radioactive waste will be left onsite, likely for millennia, unsafely stored in thin canisters each holding a Chernobyl’s worth of radioactivity that can’t be monitored for leaks until after they happen and can’t be repaired. NRC techn

It is good for the Electrical Workers and Utility Employees unions whose members are guaranteed employment, retraining and a gradual transition. This should set a good template for treatment of workers in the coming cascade of nuclear shutdowns across the country.

It’s not good for the creatures in the marine environment impacted by the plant’s on-going daily operation, already causing 80% of the marine damage along California’s coast – 1.5 billion fish per year killed.

It is good for the local county businesses and community groups who will benefit by being gradually weaned off PG&E’s tax revenue and philanthropic largess over the next decade.

AND it is not good publicity for a moribund global nuclear industry fighting for its life against a worldwide groundswell citizen opposition and an overdose of market forces.

But, ultimately – if the aged, embrittled reactors, run by a company with a history of safety violations, escape catastrophe in the next nine years (a big IF) – it will be good for a California free at last of nuclear energy, and officially committed to a renewable energy economy… but still stuck with thousands of tons of radioactive waste, lethal for millennia that are unsafely stored at the moment.

Is it the best deal possible?
It is certainly the best deal possible for Pacific Gas & Electric, ensuring its profits for the next 9 years and guaranteeing it ‘full cost recovery,’ with minor concessions on its part, given the reality of California’s mandate for 50% renewables by 2030 and dwindling demand for its inflexible, costly nuclear electricity which blocks the grid from accepting renewables. Operating with clean energy sources will be highly profitable.

In terms of public and environmental safety it’s a very high risk deal…short of extending the risk of re-licensing for another 20 years. And many more important environmental considerations are left out of the agreement.

But the beginning of the process of Diablo Canyon shutdown is happening and that is nationally and even internationally significant for the rest of the nuclear industry.

It articulates a vision of a solid transition away from dependence on nuclear power both for electricity provided to the grid as well as income provided for the San Luis Obispo community and county. It could be the beginning of a good shutdown scenario if the public is included and there’s transparency in the process to actualize the vision with active citizen participation.

A Realistic Timetable?
Going through the process at the CPUC for PG&E will take time. Preparing requests for proposals, putting bids out for Energy Efficiency; having the entities respond with projects; awarding funding; the start up time to implement the proposals; all this takes time. It will take time to build out the infrastructure and time to go through the regulatory hurdles at the CPUC.

Diablo workers need time for retraining and new job acquiring. The county needs time to reallocate funds. It actually may take many years for this transition, as much as we would like it all to happen yesterday. Two trusted experts were consulted and said that it may realistically take nearly all the nine years.

We call on the Governor, state legislature and public agencies like the State Lands Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, the Independent System Operator, the CPUC and the NRC to really do their job of protecting public trust and safety through the shutdown of Diablo and the transition to renewables. But the public knows the government agencies are increasingly favoring corporate utility interests and increasingly hostile to the public and environmental concerns.

Should we sit back, relax and stop pushing for the shutdown of Diablo?
No flaming way! This ‘Proposal’ does sketch the parameters of a good beginning, though not with enough assurance of compliance. That will be up to concerned citizens to be on high alert and persistent involvement. And now the risk will be even higher until closing. Even more extreme vigilance is needed from now on, since, as Mothers for Peace spokeswoman, Linda Seeley explained, “It’s like knowing you’ll soon be retiring a used car. Expensive broken parts are unlikely to get replaced at Diablo.” And then there’s the waste – the aspect after fissioning that makes Diablo so dangerous will remain onsite even after shutdown and must be responsibly managed.

What’s the best deal?
* Full CEQA protection with a robust EIR
* Compliance with Once Through Cooling requirements
* Additional environmental safeguards and mitigation of serious issues not covered in the Joint Proposal
* Transparent CPUC process and meaningful citizen involvement in the transition to Energy Efficiency and renewables.
*Transparent CPUC process and meaningful citizen involvement in the management of waste
*Transparent CPUC process and meaningful citizen involvement in the decommissioning decisions and process
* Insist that responsible management of the lethal waste include robust casks thick as German and Japanese casks (6’ to 19’ thick – not the ½ in. thick canisters currently in use;)and that can be closely monitored.
* Insist that already loaded canisters be carefully checked; conditions for cracking exist now in a 2 year old canister at Diablo Canyon. Through-wall cracks occurred in another plant with a similar coastal environment within 17 years.
* Insist on monitoring technology since many canisters are now approaching the age when disastrous cracks can occur.
* Take extra care with spent high burn up fuel;
* Ensure the emergency planning continues for the community
*Insist on expert supervision of all decommissioning tasks
* Demand above-ground, hardened, monitored, retrievable (for re-containerizing when monitoring indicates necessity to avoid leaks) storage in the most thick robust storage casks. Other countries do this, California must also
* Make sure the workers continue to feel they’re safe

Learn from San Onofre
Also we can learn much from the San Onofre experience. Even more extreme vigilance is needed from now on, since, as Mothers for Peace spokeswoman, Linda Seeley explained, “broken parts are unlikely to get replaced at Diablo.” Do the workers feel safe?

We must also demand the most robust available casks for the millions of pounds of lethal waste and that decisions made about waste are based on what’s best for the environment, not just utilities’ bottom line. San Onofre’s waste situation is not a model to repeat at Diablo Canyon, as the present ‘Proposal’ states.

So what can we do?
Contact the Lands Commission: CSLCWeb@slc.ca.gov
Contact the State Water Resources Control Board: info@waterboards.ca.gov
Get informed and get involved.

Attend important meetings Tuesday June 28:
•Attend the live meeting of the State Land Commission in Sacramento June 28 at 10 AM. at the Holiday Inn Capital Plaza, 300 J Street just east of route 5 and north of the route 80 intersection. Come early to sign up to speak. Google for directions.

•If you are in the San Luis Obispo area, attend the June 28, 10 AM SLC meeting at the Morro Bay Community Center at 1001 Kennedy Way. Join the Mot hers for Peace in a rally at 9 AM. Bring your signs! Come early and sign up to speak.

•Write the California Land Commission to order a complete environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before any new lease is considered in writing at CSLC.CommissionMeetings@slc.ca.gov

Demand:
* A full CEQA review
* Compliance with Once Through Cooling requirements,
* Safe shutdown of Diablo, and an accelerated transition to renewables.
* Insist that responsible management of the lethal waste include monitoring and robust casks thick as German and Japanese casks (6’ to 19’ thick – not the ½ in. thick canisters currently in use;)
* Take extra care with spent high burn up fuel;
* Ensure the emergency planning continues for the community
*Insist on expert supervision of all decommissioning tasks
* Demand above-ground, hardened, monitored, retrievable (for re-containerizing when monitoring indicates necessity to avoid leaks) storage in the most thick robust storage casks. Other countries do this, California must also
* Make sure the workers continue to feel they’re safe

Learn from San Onofre
Also we can learn much from the San Onofre experience.
We must demand the most robust available casks for the millions of pounds of long -lived lethal waste and that decisions made about waste are based on what’s best for the environment, not just utilities’ bottom line. Southern California Edison’s disastrous plan for their San Onofre radioactive waste is not a model to repeat at Diablo Canyon, as the present ‘Proposal’ states.

For more info: MothersForPeace.org
SanOnofreSafety.org
Big thanks to Arnie Gundersen and Maggie Gundersen for expert consultation.
See also:
PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California’s last nuclear power plant
Good News From Diablo Canyon
____________________________________________
Mary Beth Brangan and James Heddle co-direct EON, The Ecological Options Network. They are currently at work on a new documentary SHUTDOWN: The California-Fukushima Connection

Facebook Twitter Email
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Diablo Canyon Shut Down Proposal – A Critical View (Updated)

  1. Chuck Johnson says:

    Great break down of the issues raised by the nine-year timeline of this agreement. Thank you. And thank all of you involved in fighting Diablo Canyon for so many years. Your victory, however moderated, sends a massive signal nationally and worldwide.

    Here’s wishing you strength and persuasive skill in seriously reducing the amount of time Californians have to worry about “one bad day” at Diablo.

Comments are closed.