<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/">http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/</a><br>
<br>
</font>
<div id="rpuCopySelection" style="text-align: left; font-size: 12px;
color: black; position: fixed; top: 0pt; left: -5000px; width:
2000px; display: block;">
<div class="head">
<h1>PG&E Quietly Seeking Permission to Extend Diablo
Canyon's License</h1>
<h2>The utility wants the government's licensing review to
proceed before seismic studies are completed</h2>
<div class="lightGrey small" style="margin-top: 10px;">
<div id="text-resize">
<ul>
<li>Text Size</li>
<li class="small"><a
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/#">A</a></li>
<li class="medium"><a
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/#">A</a></li>
<li class="large"><a
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/#">A</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
By <span class="upper black"><a
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/profiles/john-upton/">John
Upton</a></span> on <span class="red">April 22, 2011 -
5:45 p.m. PDT</span> </div>
</div>
<div class="socialBar">
<div class="icon iComment left"><a
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/#comments"
class="comments_count">1 Comment</a></div>
<div class="right">
<div class="icon iPrint left"><a
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/print/">Print</a></div>
<div class="icon iEmail left"><a title="Email"
style="text-decoration: none;" class="addthis_button_email
at300b"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_email"></span>Email</a></div>
<div class="left" style="padding: 0pt 4px 0pt 0pt;"> <a
_target="blank" class="rpuRepostUsButton"
href="https://secure.repost.us/syndicate/create?url=http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/&s_url=http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo/all/">
<img title="Repost This" alt="Repost This"
src="cid:part1.03040005.05050601@aim.com"> </a> </div>
<div class="left" style="padding: 0px 0pt 0pt 3px;"> </div>
<div class="left" style="padding: 0pt 10px 0pt 0pt;"> <a
style="text-decoration: none;"
href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baycitizen.org%2Fpge%2Fstory%2Fpge-seeking-permission-extend-diablo%2F&t=PG%26E%20Quietly%20Seeking%20Permission%20to%20Extend%20Diablo%20Canyon%27s%20License%20-%20The%20Bay%20Citizen&src=sp"
name="fb_share" type="button_count"><span
class="fb_share_size_Small "><span
class="FBConnectButton FBConnectButton_Small"
style="cursor: pointer;"><span
class="FBConnectButton_Text">Recommend</span></span><span
class="fb_share_count_nub_right "></span><span
class="fb_share_count fb_share_count_right"><span
class="fb_share_count_inner">20</span></span></span></a>
</div>
<div class="left" style="padding: 2px 0pt 0pt;"> <a
class="addthis_button"
href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250"> <img
src="cid:part2.04030005.03060206@aim.com" alt="Bookmark
and Share" style="border: 0pt none;" width="16"
height="16"> </a> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="body">
<div class="media lead"> <a class="fancy_image"
href="http://media.baycitizen.org/uploaded/images/2011/3/diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-plant/lightbox/11040625_79109602f2_z.jpg"
title="The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant"><img
src="cid:part3.08030306.07070600@aim.com" alt=""
width="235" height="230"></a>
<div class="caption">
<div class="imageByline">Creative Commons/<a
href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/emdot/11040625/"
target="_blank">marya</a></div>
<div class="imageCaption">The Diablo Canyon nuclear power
plant</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Pacific Gas and Electric Company is quietly seeking a 20-year
extension of its license to operate the Diablo Canyon nuclear
power plant, despite publicly requesting the process be
delayed until studies of the facility's ability to withstand
an earthquake are completed.</p>
<p>The discrepancy between the company's public and private
stance has led some lawmakers and environment advocates to
accuse PG&E of misleading the public about its plans for
the San Luis Obispo plant following last month's devastating
earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan.</p>
<p>On April 10, PG&E asked the National Regulatory
Commission to postpone relicensing its Diablo Canyon nuclear
power plant until the company completes studies of a seismic
fault that runs within 330 yards of the facility.</p>
<p>“In the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and the
resulting tsunami, we are working even more closely with
various governmental permitting agencies to accelerate the
plant’s advanced seismic research,” PG&E’s Chief Nuclear
Officer John Conway said in a <a
href="http://www.pge.com/about/newsroom/newsreleases/20110411/pgampe_commits_to_finishing_3-d_seismic_studies_related_to_diablo_canyon_before_seeking_final_issuance_of_renewed_licenses.shtml"
target="_blank">press release</a> one day after the <a
href="http://bayc.it/dESF/" target="_blank">April 10 letter</a> was
sent to the NRC.</p>
<p>“As PG&E works toward this objective, we are asking the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to withhold issuance of
PG&E’s renewed operating licenses, if approved, until
after this research is completed and the findings are
submitted to the commission,” Conway stated.</p>
<p>The utility's critics and lawmakers praised the delay.</p>
<p>But on April 12, PG&E sent a <a
href="http://bayc.it/dESG/" target="_blank">clarifying
letter</a> to the NRC, which it did not publicize with a
press release, asking agency staff to move forward with safety
and environmental reviews associated with relicensing efforts
before the company’s seismic studies are completed.</p>
<p>“PG&E has not requested any suspension or delay in the
NRC Staff’s ongoing safety and environmental reviews,”
PG&E attorney David Repka wrote in the April 12 letter.
“PG&E also is not requesting any delay in the schedule for
this licensing hearing process.”</p>
<p>Liz Apfelberg, a member of Mothers For Peace, which has long
led protests against construction at Diablo Canyon, accused
PG&E of taking a “sneaky” approach to public relations by
sending the second, unpublicized letter.</p>
<div class="story relatedContent"> <span>Related</span>
<ul class="relatedContent">
<li><a
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/congresswoman-calls-feds-suspend-diablo/">
<div title="None" class="contentType None inline">None</div>
Congresswoman Calls on Feds to Suspend Diablo Canyon
Permit Application</a></li>
<li><a
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-blasted-disregard-risk-nuclear-plant/">
<div title="None" class="contentType None inline">None</div>
PG&E Blasted for 'Disregard of Risk' at Nuclear
Plant</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>NRC spokesman Victor Dricks this week confirmed that the
agency is moving forward with safety and other reviews of the
Diablo Canyon facility in preparation for a ruling on
PG&E's request for permit extensions.</p>
<p>“We’re continuing our review,” Dricks said.</p>
<p>PG&E spokesman Paul Flake said the NRC’s safety review of
Diablo Canyon and the company’s planned seismic studies “don’t
have any connection with one another.”</p>
<p>Sen. Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo), a geophysicist with a
doctorate in earthquake studies whose district includes the
nuclear power plant, said it’s impossible for the NRC to
“credibly perform” safety studies required for the extension
of Diablo Canyon’s operating permits without first reviewing
the results of PG&E’s planned seismic studies.</p>
<p>“It seems utterly contradictory,” Blakeslee said.</p>
<p>The Diablo Canyon plant lies next to the Shoreline Fault,
which was discovered in 2008. Seismologists know little about
the fault, including whether it is connected to other faults
in the region. Some fear that its rupture could severely
damage Diablo Canyon, causing a catastrophic nuclear meltdown.</p>
<p>PG&E says the seismic studies of the 1980s-era power
plant will be completed by the end of 2015. The plant's
operating permit expires in 2025, and PG&E has asked the
NRC to extend it by 20 years.</p>
<p>At a hearing on April 14 before the Senate Energy Committee,
officials for the NRC testified that Diablo Canyon is
considered safe, because no data exists indicating otherwise.</p>
<p>But federal lawmakers are aware of the potential safety
threats.</p>
<p>"We are particularly interested in the safety of the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, located in San Clemete, and
the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo,
both of which are near earthquake faults," senators Barbara
Boxer and Dianne Feinstein wrote in a March 16 letter to the
NRC. "We ask that the National Regulatory Commission (NRC)
perform a thorough inspection at these two plants to evaluate
their safety and emergency preparedness plans."</p>
<p>More recently, Feinstein asked the NRC to assess seismic and
tsunami hazards, operational issues, plant security, emergency
preparedness and spent fuel storage before it relicenses
nuclear power plants.</p>
<p>"I believe that our understanding of many threats –
especially seismic threats, tsunami threats, spent fuel risks,
and terrorist threats – has improved dramatically since most
nuclear power plants were originally designed and licensed
thirty or more years ago," Feinstein wrote in the <a
href="http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=744d4296-5056-8059-76d7-22faf75e4515"
target="_blank">April 20 letter</a> to NRC Chairman Gregory
Jaczko. "Relicensing these facilities offers a unique
opportunity to review the original assessment of potential
threats, in order to ensure that a facility is designed to
endure all threats safely."</p>
</div>
<p id="clply-tag" style="font-size: smaller;">Source: <a
href="http://s.tt/12jrO">The Bay Citizen</a> (<a
href="http://s.tt/12jrO">http://s.tt/12jrO</a>)</p>
</div>
<br>
<div id="header">
<div class="logo"><a id="texas_tribune_logo"
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/"><img
src="cid:part4.01000205.03040906@aim.com"></a></div>
<p class="current_date">Friday, April 22, 2011</p>
</div>
<h1>PG&E Quietly Seeking Permission to Extend Diablo Canyon's
License</h1>
<br>
<br>
The utility wants the government's licensing review to proceed
before seismic studies are completed<br>
By: <a href="http://www.baycitizen.org/profiles/john-upton/">John
Upton</a><br>
<br>
<p>Pacific Gas and Electric Company is quietly seeking a 20-year
extension of its license to operate the Diablo Canyon nuclear
power plant, despite publicly requesting the process be delayed
until studies of the facility's ability to withstand an earthquake
are completed.</p>
<p>The discrepancy between the company's public and private stance
has led some lawmakers and environment advocates to accuse
PG&E of misleading the public about its plans for the San Luis
Obispo plant following last month's devastating earthquake,
tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan.</p>
<p>On April 10, PG&E asked the National Regulatory Commission to
postpone relicensing its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant until
the company completes studies of a seismic fault that runs within
330 yards of the facility.</p>
<p>“In the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and the resulting
tsunami, we are working even more closely with various
governmental permitting agencies to accelerate the plant’s
advanced seismic research,” PG&E’s Chief Nuclear Officer John
Conway said in a <a
href="http://www.pge.com/about/newsroom/newsreleases/20110411/pgampe_commits_to_finishing_3-d_seismic_studies_related_to_diablo_canyon_before_seeking_final_issuance_of_renewed_licenses.shtml"
target="_blank">press release</a> one day after the <a
href="http://bayc.it/dESF/" target="_blank">April 10 letter</a> was
sent to the NRC.</p>
<p>“As PG&E works toward this objective, we are asking the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to withhold issuance of PG&E’s
renewed operating licenses, if approved, until after this research
is completed and the findings are submitted to the commission,”
Conway stated.</p>
<p>The utility's critics and lawmakers praised the delay.</p>
<p>But on April 12, PG&E sent a <a href="http://bayc.it/dESG/"
target="_blank">clarifying letter</a> to the NRC, which it did
not publicize with a press release, asking agency staff to move
forward with safety and environmental reviews associated with
relicensing efforts before the company’s seismic studies are
completed.</p>
<p>“PG&E has not requested any suspension or delay in the NRC
Staff’s ongoing safety and environmental reviews,” PG&E
attorney David Repka wrote in the April 12 letter. “PG&E also
is not requesting any delay in the schedule for this licensing
hearing process.”</p>
<p>Liz Apfelberg, a member of Mothers For Peace, which has long led
protests against construction at Diablo Canyon, accused PG&E
of taking a “sneaky” approach to public relations by sending the
second, unpublicized letter.</p>
<p>NRC spokesman Victor Dricks this week confirmed that the agency
is moving forward with safety and other reviews of the Diablo
Canyon facility in preparation for a ruling on PG&E's request
for permit extensions.</p>
<p>“We’re continuing our review,” Dricks said.</p>
<p>PG&E spokesman Paul Flake said the NRC’s safety review of
Diablo Canyon and the company’s planned seismic studies “don’t
have any connection with one another.”</p>
<p>Sen. Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo), a geophysicist with a
doctorate in earthquake studies whose district includes the
nuclear power plant, said it’s impossible for the NRC to “credibly
perform” safety studies required for the extension of Diablo
Canyon’s operating permits without first reviewing the results of
PG&E’s planned seismic studies.</p>
<p>“It seems utterly contradictory,” Blakeslee said.</p>
<p>The Diablo Canyon plant lies next to the Shoreline Fault, which
was discovered in 2008. Seismologists know little about the fault,
including whether it is connected to other faults in the region.
Some fear that its rupture could severely damage Diablo Canyon,
causing a catastrophic nuclear meltdown.</p>
<p>PG&E says the seismic studies of the 1980s-era power plant
will be completed by the end of 2015. The plant's operating permit
expires in 2025, and PG&E has asked the NRC to extend it by 20
years.</p>
<p>At a hearing on April 14 before the Senate Energy Committee,
officials for the NRC testified that Diablo Canyon is considered
safe, because no data exists indicating otherwise.</p>
<p>But federal lawmakers are aware of the potential safety threats.</p>
<p>"We are particularly interested in the safety of the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station, located in San Clemete, and the Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, both of which are
near earthquake faults," senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne
Feinstein wrote in a March 16 letter to the NRC. "We ask that the
National Regulatory Commission (NRC) perform a thorough inspection
at these two plants to evaluate their safety and emergency
preparedness plans."</p>
<p>More recently, Feinstein asked the NRC to assess seismic and
tsunami hazards, operational issues, plant security, emergency
preparedness and spent fuel storage before it relicenses nuclear
power plants.</p>
<p>"I believe that our understanding of many threats – especially
seismic threats, tsunami threats, spent fuel risks, and terrorist
threats – has improved dramatically since most nuclear power
plants were originally designed and licensed thirty or more years
ago," Feinstein wrote in the <a
href="http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=744d4296-5056-8059-76d7-22faf75e4515"
target="_blank">April 20 letter</a> to NRC Chairman Gregory
Jaczko. "Relicensing these facilities offers a unique opportunity
to review the original assessment of potential threats, in order
to ensure that a facility is designed to endure all threats
safely."</p>
</body>
</html>