Meeting Summary
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Briefing
- NRC staff presented data on Diablo Canyon's seismic design basis, inspection findings, and lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster.
- Public commenters presented diverse perspectives on the plant's economic benefits, safety risks, and the necessity of nuclear energy.
- The board directed staff to request a hold on licensing procedures until all studies are complete and to advocate for third-party peer review.
- Staff were tasked with reporting on local evacuation procedures, medical preparedness, and the installation of radiation monitoring stations.
Budget Restorations and Sources
- Supervisors proposed various funding restorations for public safety, social services, and economic development, with specific allocations for helicopter operations and jail funding.
- Staff identified potential funding sources, including tax revenue savings and shifted payment costs, to balance the proposed restorations.
- The board discussed the operational costs and partial usage options for the Santa Maria Branch Jail, leaning toward evening-only operations.
- The board agreed to continue deliberations the following day to finalize the list of restorations and confirm sufficient funding sources.
Closed Session
- Counsel reported that the scheduled closed session was held but no specific matters were recorded for the public agenda.
- The agenda item was continued to 8:00 a.m. the following morning for further discussion.
Full summary
Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance
- The meeting opened with a roll call confirming the presence of Supervisors Wolfe, Farr, Lavagnino, Carbajal, and Gray. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Closed Session Report
- Counsel reported that the scheduled closed session was held. No specific matters were reported for the record, as the agenda item was continued to 8:00 a.m. the following morning.
General Public Comment
- Mr. Jeff Bard spoke regarding ongoing renewable energy projects in the region, including solar and wind initiatives, and expressed support for the progression of the Aciona Wind project. He also commented on the presence of Vandenberg Air Force Base and his views on peace activism and military conduct.
Agenda Item 1: Briefing from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
- Staff Presentation: Michael Harris of the Office of Emergency Services introduced the item, noting a request for a briefing from NRC staff regarding the Diablo Canyon relicensing, seismic risks, and lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster. Staff apologized for the initial absence of a letter from the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors to the NRC, stating they had located a letter to PG&E regarding relicensure and would provide it.
- NRC Presentation: Tony Vagel, Director of the Division of Reactor Safety for Region 4, presented on behalf of the NRC. Key points included:
- The NRC’s mission to license and regulate civilian radioactive materials.
- Diablo Canyon is currently receiving the NRC’s rigorous baseline inspection program, with findings of very low safety significance.
- The plant is designed for a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the Hosbury Fault and a 35-foot tsunami. The site is located 85 feet above sea level.
- Following the Fukushima incident, the NRC conducted two inspections of all U.S. nuclear plants to assess capabilities for major losses of equipment. Inspectors reported no safety-significant issues.
- The NRC is preparing a report on lessons learned from Fukushima, with the first report expected the following month and a second report in six months.
- The NRC clarified that the 50-mile evacuation recommendation for U.S. citizens in Japan was a conservative decision based on limited information at the time.
- Supervisor Questions and NRC Responses:
- Supervisor Carbajal: Requested the San Luis Obispo Board’s letter to the NRC. He asked about third-party peer review of safety studies and the specific height baselines for tsunami protection (noting the snorkel intakes are at 48 feet while the facility is at 85 feet). He inquired about the likelihood of earthquakes exceeding the 7.5 magnitude design basis.
- Supervisor Lavagnino: Asked how the 7.5 magnitude design basis was determined and whether the plant has been tested for higher magnitudes.
- Supervisor Wolfe: Raised concerns about the residual heat removal system line vent, which is not required to be installed until 2014. She asked why immediate installation was not required, citing hydrogen explosions at Fukushima. NRC staff clarified that the gas accumulation issue at Diablo Canyon involved nitrogen/air, not hydrogen, and was not explosive. They explained that the vent line installation requires seismic qualification and design analysis, which takes time. Supervisor Wolfe also asked about the NRC’s authority to require PG&E to install air monitoring stations in Santa Barbara County. NRC staff stated they would investigate and respond later, noting that the EPA manages the RAPNET monitoring network.
- Supervisor Farr: Asked about the current status of radiation leaks at Fukushima, with NRC staff stating leaks have been stopped and controlled. She inquired about how seismic interactions between different faults are measured and the geographic range of fault analysis. NRC staff explained that PG&E is conducting 3D mapping of the shoreline fault, and the original licensing looked at faults within 200 miles. She asked if hazard maps and evacuation zones would be revised based on new seismic data. NRC staff confirmed that emergency preparedness plans and maps would be evaluated and potentially revised.
- Supervisor Carbajal (continued): Requested a history of violations and corrective actions at Diablo Canyon over the past 5–10 years. He emphasized the need for real-time radiation monitoring in Santa Barbara County and asked about the availability of emergency supplies (e.g., medication) in the county.
- NRC Response on Peer Review: NRC staff explained that oversight includes the Inspector General, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), and assessments by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They acknowledged that while Japan abided by international codes, the Fukushima event highlighted the need for further learning and prevention strategies.
- NRC Response on 7.5 Magnitude: NRC staff explained that the 7.5 magnitude was determined by independent studies by PG&E and the USGS, which were peer-reviewed. PG&E is required to maintain a geosciences department to continue evaluations as new data becomes available.
- Public Comment on Agenda Item 1
- Dave Cross (Economic Development Commission/Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce): Highlighted the economic benefits of Diablo Canyon, including over 1,200 PG&E employees, 200 contractors, and significant local spending (over $73 million in purchases from local vendors between 2006–2009).
- Shannon Seifert (CEO, Santa Maria Valley YMCA): Discussed the YMCA’s relationship with PG&E, noting their financial support for community events and enhancements to Waller Park.
- Andy Caldwell (CoLab): Expressed support for PG&E and the NRC, arguing that local governments should not assert regulatory control over the plant. He stated that nuclear power is necessary to meet state energy mandates (AB 32) and that peer review is sufficient.
- Bill Pomasano: Raised a concern from an NRC inspector’s report stating that the auxiliary feed water system can only cool one reactor at a time during a power loss, questioning why both units are allowed to operate.
- Patricia Wilmore (PG&E Government Relations): Thanked the board and NRC. She confirmed that PG&E has filed permits for enhanced seismic studies and has asked the CPUC to suspend the license renewal funding application. She noted that PG&E is working in the right direction.
- Brian Rosen: Argued that nuclear power is not needed due to energy efficiency potential, cited public opposition to nuclear power, and expressed distrust in the NRC’s independence.
- Patricia Rosen: Agreed with Brian Rosen’s statements.
- Jeff Bard: (Scheduled to speak next, but the transcript ends before his full comment on this item is recorded; his earlier general comment is noted above).
- Pro-Nuclear/Industry Perspectives:
- One speaker, identifying as a former union member and scientist, defended the NRC and criticized anti-nuclear groups, specifically mentioning "Mothers for Peace." The speaker referenced personal health, local agriculture, and the need for nuclear energy to address climate change. They distributed copies of evacuation information and book outlines.
- David Weissman, Outreach Coordinator for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, argued that state jurisdiction over economic and reliability issues allows California to influence nuclear policy. He stated that the NRC did not require the 3D seismic studies currently underway; rather, these were initiated by the California Energy Commission and state legislation (Assembly Bill 1632). He emphasized the economic ramifications of a potential accident and urged the board to engage with state legislators and the Public Utilities Commission.
- Lauren Sharp, Senior Director at PG&E, clarified that reactor design is based on ground motion rather than just earthquake magnitude. She explained that PG&E voluntarily requested funding from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to perform 3D seismic studies. She stated that PG&E leadership requested the NRC delay license renewal decisions until these studies were completed. She confirmed that backup water systems have sufficient capacity to cool both reactors.
- Anti-Nuclear/Safety Concern Perspectives:
- Ron Daxter, a veteran, advocated for energy conservation and efficiency as the primary solution to energy needs, stating that nuclear energy is not necessary.
- Lauren McElroy expressed concern that international codes were insufficient to prevent the Fukushima disaster. She argued that nuclear power poses risks that outweigh benefits, cited potential impacts on property values and evacuation routes, and asked the board to enact a zero-tolerance policy for radiation and consider decommissioning.
- Sharon Rose highlighted the unreliability of electrical power for cooling due to solar flares and grid failures. She cited a California Independent Operator study indicating an oversupply of power through 2020 and supported the phase-out of nuclear power in favor of renewables and energy efficiency.
- Mark Shutillo raised concerns about the independence of embedded NRC inspectors, the need for local radiation monitoring, and the inadequacy of current evacuation systems. He requested that PG&E model exposure times, test evacuation capacity, and assess economic impacts on property values.
- An unidentified speaker (referred to as Ms. Staples in the transcript flow, though the speaker identified as a concerned citizen) questioned the NRC’s role as a watchdog and noted that the NRC’s annual assessment letter identified cross-cutting issues. They suggested the board ask the NRC directly if Diablo Canyon is safe.
- Judith Everett, a member of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, presented data suggesting higher cancer rates near nuclear plants and argued that wind and ocean currents carry potential plumes to Santa Barbara. She requested the board ask the NRC to close Diablo Canyon.
- A final speaker questioned the authorization of an aging plant for another 20 years and asked why more is not being done to address nuclear energy risks in California.
- Board Discussion and Motion
- Supervisor Carbajal expressed concern that probability ranges for earthquakes were not provided and that the facility is rated for a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. She proposed sending a letter to the NRC and PG&E to hold off on licensing procedures until all studies are completed. She also advocated for third-party peer review of all studies and compliance issues, the installation of radiation monitoring stations in Santa Barbara County, and addressing medical supply issues.
- Supervisor Wolf moved to receive the briefing from NRC staff and direct county staff to take the following actions:
- 1. Write a letter to the NRC and PG&E requesting that all licensing procedures be held until all studies are completed. 2. Advocate for third-party review of studies and compliance issues. 3. Direct staff (including OES, Ag Commissioner, and Public Health) to report back to the board on evacuation procedures, medical issues, agricultural impacts, power loss implications, and the incorporation of monitoring stations in the county.
- Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion. He noted that the request for third-party review aligns with PG&E’s own requests to the NRC and expressed support for increased oversight.
- Supervisor Farr supported the motion, citing concerns about long-term toxic waste and the unpredictability of natural disasters. She noted that the emergency information provided by PG&E was concerning and indicated the board would want to be involved in drafting local emergency plans.
- Vote
- Outcome: Passed.
Agenda Item: Budget Restorations and Sources (2011-2012 Budget)
- Discussion of Potential Sources
- Staff presented potential funding sources identified since the proposed budget was released. These included:
- $266,000 in savings from the tax revenue anticipation note.
- $365,000 in shifted COP payment costs.
- $507,000 from the leftover balance of the 2005 COP to pay down 2011-2012 COP payments.
- $100,000 reduction in the use of cell tower revenue.
- Staff explained that the board would discuss restoration items first, solidify the list of items with sufficient support, and then address the sources to balance the budget. The final adopted amounts would become Attachment E of the board’s budget resolution.
- Board Member Proposals for Restorations
- Supervisor Wolf: Proposed restorations totaling approximately $5.18 million, focusing on public safety, health protection for vulnerable populations, and economic development. Specific items included:
- Clinic Operations (ADMHS): $150,000 general fund plus $150,000 in matching funds to restore three FTEs for children’s services and mental health.
- Legislative Advocate (CEO’s Office): $60,000. Staff noted that the advocate’s work contributed to securing $600,000 in emergency room funding and other state funds.
- Child Abuse and Neglect (Social Services): $177,723 general fund plus $95,697 in matching funds for three additional social workers.
- Adult Protective Services (Social Services): $86,036 general fund plus $96,244 in matching funds.
- Foster Care (Social Services): $110,720 general fund plus $110,720 in matching funds.
- Protective Pay (Treasurer/Tax Collector): $248,108.
- Helicopter Operations (Fire Department): $1,323,848. Staff clarified this was a general fund impact.
- Warming Centers (Public Health/HCD): $25,000.
- Human Services Grants (Public Health/HCD): $1,000,000 (15% reduction allocation).
- Film Commission (HCD): $50,000.
- Public Safety Discretionary Allocation: $1,500,000 allocated as follows: $350,000 to the District Attorney, $500,000 to the Sheriff, $400,000 to Probation, and $250,000 to the Public Defender.
- Supervisor Farr: Proposed restorations totaling approximately $4.68 million, with funding sources identified from deferred maintenance, capital, road, ARRA, and contingency funds. Specific items included:
- Governmental Advocates: $60,000.
- County Television: $48,000 for two full-time positions.
- District Attorney Treatment Court Team: $587,000.
- Public Defender: $116,899 for a conservatorship attorney and $207,825 for two social workers (totaling ~$325,000).
- Fire Department Helicopter Aviation Unit: $1,000,000.
- Probation: $107,760 for a Prop 36 Drug Court officer and $243,381 for targeted gang intervention.
- Film Commission: $25,000 as a challenge grant to be matched by the community.
- Human Services Commission: $1,000,000.
- Warming Centers: $25,000.
- New Beginnings Program: $25,000.
- Protective Pay: ~$200,000.
- Adult Aging Network (Social Services): $60,000 for four half-time positions.
- Sheriff’s Department: $1,000,000 from the jail funding pot, with suggested uses for gang team and narcotics enforcement.
- Supervisor Lavagnino: Proposed restorations including:
- Santa Maria Jail: $1,200,000.
- Fire Department Helicopter: $1,000,000.
- Human Services Commission: Full funding.
- Fire Department Fuels Crew: $500,000.
- Probation Drug Court Officer: ~$107,000–$109,000.
- Protective Pay: Support for restoration.
- Veteran Services: $110,160 for a third officer to keep the Lompoc office open.
- Film Commission: $25,000.
- Chamber of Commerce: Redo calculations at a 15% cut rather than 25%.
- Supervisor Carbajal: Proposed restorations guided by fiscal sustainability and employee concessions. Specific items included:
- Human Services: $1,200,000.
- Warming Centers: $25,000.
- Fire Department Helicopter: $1,000,000.
- Protective Pay: $200,000, contingent on implementing an administrative fee program.
- Governmental Advocates: $61,000.
- Aging and Adult Network: $65,000 from departmental general funds.
- Film Commission: $25,000 or $50,000.
- New Beginnings: $12,000.
- District Attorney: Funding for two deputy DAs (~$240,000).
- Jail Operations: Support for the $1,000,000 recommended by the CEO.
- Public Comment
- Andy Caldwell (COLAB): Asked where the funding for restorations would come from, noting that only Supervisor Farr had identified sources. He declined to comment further without that information.
- John Wilsack (Sheriff’s Benevolent Posse): Expressed concern over cuts to public safety programs, specifically the Gang Enforcement Task Force and the Narcotics Unit. He argued that the Sheriff’s Department should manage the county’s air unit, noting that a new medium-lift helicopter funded by private donations is arriving. He stated that the Fire Department’s aviation role is secondary compared to the Sheriff’s.
- Sheriff Brown: Requested that the board delay finalizing the helicopter funding decision until a subcommittee can review the Sheriff’s Department’s capabilities and the incoming aircraft. He suggested continuing some funding for the Fire Aviation Program temporarily. He reiterated the need for jail funding, citing a $56.3 million state grant for a North County jail that requires match money and operational costs. He opposed tying restorations to the status of labor negotiations with specific unions, arguing that public safety needs should not be jeopardized by ongoing negotiations.
- Supervisor Carbajal: Clarified that her decisions were guided by the lack of available funds and the conceptual nature of employee concessions. She stated that if more concessions are finalized, the board could revisit cuts.
- Chair Gray: Acknowledged the severity of the budget cuts, describing them as "cutting off a leg" rather than "shortening a skirt." She noted the appointment of a committee to review aircraft usage and stated that the current decisions are tentative and subject to change.
- Steve Lavagnino: Clarified that the aircraft subcommittee was not expected to finalize recommendations before the budget deadline, with a six-month timeline for expert review.
- Mr. Armadillos: Argued that the crisis is political rather than purely fiscal, urging the board to fully fund essential public safety departments (Sheriff, DA, Probation, Public Defender) before other services. He questioned the absence of the Blue Ribbon Budget Task Force.
- Supervisor Wolf: Stated that her proposed restorations were funded by identified sources totaling $5.8 million and emphasized the importance of public safety and services for vulnerable populations.
- Clarifications and Tentative Agreements
- Helicopter Operations: Supervisor Wolf requested to change her proposed amount from $1,003,000 to $1,000,000.
- Santa Maria Jail: Sheriff Brown presented three options for partial operation of the Santa Maria Branch Jail:
- 1. Evening hours (8 p.m. to 4 a.m.) seven days a week: $743,287. 2. Evening hours (8 p.m. to 4 a.m.) Thursday, Friday, and Saturday: $360,912. 3. Additional transports to Lompoc (not recommended by Sheriff). Supervisor Carbajal expressed openness to using part of the jail fund for Option 2 (~$300,000–$360,000). Chair Gray supported this option, noting that other agencies might cover other nights.
- District Attorney Funding: The board discussed consolidating funds for the DA. Supervisor Carbajal specified $240,000 for two deputy DAs. Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Farr had proposed higher discretionary amounts. The DA requested discretionary funding. The board tentatively agreed to support $240,000 for the DA, with at least three supervisors indicating support for this amount or higher.
- Probation Funding: The board discussed funding for the Probation Drug Court officer. Supervisor Lavagnino and Supervisor Farr supported specific funding for the Drug Court. Supervisor Wolf proposed a discretionary amount. Staff noted that there were not yet three clear votes for a specific probation item, but the board agreed to keep the items on the list for further discussion.
- Process: Staff proposed to refine the list of restorations by department to clarify support levels. The board agreed to continue the discussion the following day, with the understanding that current positions are tentative and subject to change. Staff would work to identify funding sources for the items with sufficient support.
- Decision
- No final vote was taken on the specific restoration items in this session. The board agreed to continue the discussion the following day to finalize the list of restorations and identify funding sources. The session was adjourned to allow staff to prepare calculations and for the board to review the proposals.
Discussion on Departmental Prioritization and Funding
- Members discussed the allocation of resources among different departments, specifically referencing drug court funding and gang intervention officers. One member expressed concern about prioritizing these areas while maintaining existing funding levels. Another member suggested allowing the group time to reconsider the list of items, noting that items with only one interested party might drop off, but expressing a desire to avoid losing items with two interested parties due to the difficulty in determining which items have three interested parties.
Adjournment and Scheduling
- The Chair acknowledged the discussion and invited the audience to provide further ideas. The Chair noted that the group would reconvene the following morning, with a closed session scheduled for 8:00 AM and the remainder of the members expected to be present at 9:00 AM. The meeting was adjourned.