From: Abby Thorne-Lyman
To: Lara Weisiger; Roselena MejiaCampos
Subject: Fw: 7-B questions and comments
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:53:55 PM
Attachments: Outlook-city-of-Al.png
Outlook-nf2h020i.png
Hi there
For the record please see below.
Thanks
Abby
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 4:10 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Len Aslanian <[email protected]>; Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 7-B questions and comments
Thank you. I realize I forgot that Section 13.4 also allows us to terminate if Pacific Fusion pursues another site:
City Termination Rights. If Pacific Fusion elects to exclusively pursue the development of the Project on another site, or otherwise has abandoned pursuing the Project on the Property, it shall promptly notify City of the same and City shall thereafter have the right to terminate the ENA Abby Thorne-Lyman (she/her)
Director
Base Reuse and Economic Development
City of Alameda
[email protected]
c: 510-872-2686
Book time to meet with me
From: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 4:08 PM
To: Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>; Len Aslanian <[email protected]>; Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 7-B questions and comments
Great responses, Abby. Thank you.
Marilyn
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Mayor, City of Alameda
510-747-4745
From: Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:00 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Len Aslanian <[email protected]>; Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 7-B questions and comments
Hi Mayor,
Please see my responses below. I am seeking answers to the questions on their FAQ exhibit (below the sentence in bold)
Thank you,
Abby
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 12:36 PM
To: Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>; Len Aslanian <[email protected]>; Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>
Subject: 7-B questions and comments
Good Afternoon All,
I have the following questions and comments on this item.
From the staff report:
pg. 1 - Does the potential second phase account for the 3-acre difference in property size description between first and second paragraphs (12-18 acres vs. 12-15 acres)? Pacific Fusion initially made an offer for 12 acres, then said they may need to redesign and have the first phase be up to 15 acres. The 18 acres assumed their first phase would be 12, and the 6 acres along West Pacific to the east would be the second phase for a total of 18 acres. Because the Navy owned property takes a chunk out of the middle of the second phase it is hard to confirm the acreage that the developer would want for a second Phase.
A Land Transfer Agreement is a sale, right? What control do we have over this property if Pacific Fusion (PF) buys it, but doesn’t succeed in its mission, and sells the property? Land use restrictions through zoning?
Yes a Land Transfer Agreement would be a sale. We are currently assuming this would be a purchase option which would allow us to retain ownership until they are ready to build. But we are also contemplating including a “buy back” clause so that if the property were sold and not delivered as promised we could have the rights to take it back. pg. 2 - What is the other East Bay city PF is considering? We believe it is Livermore.
pp. 2-3 - If PF is expected to decide on a location by mid-2025, why are we offering them up to 33 months? Is ENA phased so that the first milestone requires PF to decide its preferred location by mid-2025? (We’re not in the business of land banking and I don’t want to tie up property that others may become interested in.)
If they opt not to pursue the first phase within the first 12 months, we do in the ENA section 3 have a right to terminate.
The ENA allows up to a year as the 4-6 month timeline is going to be aggressive, so we are providing a more reasonable 12 month time frame for entitlements and negotiations (akin to the length of time we have given Radium).
pg. 3 - Some terminology seems to change throughout the staff report. For example, the first paragraph refers to the proposal as a “research and development facility” but later in the report, the facility is called a “demonstration facility.” Is there a difference? Good question. Pacific Fusion uses the term “demonstration facility” but my understanding is that this is really research and development, keyed into their particular use (they will build a fusion contraption that they can test in different ways). However it is important to note that with Hines involved as their developer, they would like to seek broader, more flexible approvals for research and development so that if Pacific Fusion were not to work out, they would be able to market the building for broader research and development uses. This would be true of any developer fronting the money; they would want flexibility to make the building usable for a variety of different tenants. Of course a different R&D user would have to comply with our zoning and secure relevant use permits.
The facility is regulated by the CA Department of Public Health. What are the health risks? Pacific Fusion has stated that the materials they use contain low levels of radiation similar to a hospital. We will need to get a deeper understanding and response to this question from them.
In the last paragraph, are you referring to “levies,” i.e., taxes or levees, i.e., embankments to prevent flooding?
Whoops! That should say levees.
pp. 3-4 - Is the City proposing to provide the land to PF in exchange for infrastructure improvements?
Yes
pg. 5 - I understand from the ENA that PF and/or the developer will develop Community Engagement Plan. Will there be targeted outreach to residents and businesses closest to the site? AUSD since EHS is nearby?
Yes there will be. They have already begun outreach to AUSD. We can include specific requirements in their Engagement Plan.
Exh. 2 - Third bullet point would seem to eliminate the Radium project These are intended specific to the Enterprise District but I understand your point.
Can Pacific Fusion be considered a “clean” use?
We believe so but we need additional information from Pacific Fusion to confirm. They are stating they are a clean use. Their byproduct is helium and the elements they plan to use have a short half life.
Exh. 3, pg. 4, section 8.2 - re Community Engagement Plan, I would like to add a date by which community group meetings must start. As previously noted, there should also be targeted outreach to residents and businesses closest to the site, and AUSD since EHS is also nearby.
We can require this of them in the plan.
Exh. 3, pg. 5, section 8.5 - When does Pacific Fusion need to provide the referenced evidence of financial ability?
There is no specified date, however we will not bring a term sheet or purchase agreement to Council without this step completed. As far as we are concerned it is a minimum requirement for Council to reasonably consider a deal.
Exh. 4, pg. 1 - PF was founded in 2023; it is a new company without much track record. Just an observation.
Yes- agreed. This is important. We believe this is why it is good they have Hines on board who should be prepared to build without Pacific Fusion for a more flexible R&D user (please see above).
I will follow up with them for the remaining questions.
Exh. 4, pg. 2 - Where would the power plant be built? Is PF contemplating Alameda Point for power plant location?
So health risk is radiation leak?
Does water from the passive water shield become irradiated? If so, where is water discharged? Exh. 4, pg. 4 - PF’s fusion process uses lithium. We’ve seen lithium battery fires. Is there a fire danger associated with this facility?
Explain “weakly radioactive” and “short half-life.” What is tritium’s half-life? If “fusion does not create any long-lived radioactive waste,” does it create any radioactive waste? If so, how and where is this waste disposed?
Are the National Ignition Facility in Livermore, CA and the Z Facility in Albuquerque, NM located in as close proximity to a residential area as the potential Pacific Fusion site? Exh. 4, pg. 5 - Does this mean that “radiological waste brokers” will transport the radiological waste in trucks out of Alameda? Where is this waste disposed? Where will the tritium be sourced from?
Exh. 4, pg. 6 - Would Pacific Fusion consider locating a power plant at Alameda Point? Resolution, pg. 1 - I would like to see the ENA bifurcated so that PF is granted 12 months to decide if they want to locate this facility in Alameda or the other city they are also negotiating with. (Apparently this ENA is only “exclusive” for Alameda.) That way we don’t tie up the property for 2+ years which developers sometimes do to prevent others from acquiring it.
Correspondence: Bill Quirk letter, second to last paragraph, says, “Pacific Fusion must also demonstrate that any radiation is contained within a limited area of the facility and poses no risk to the surrounding community.” How will PF do that? And fyi, I am also going to speak to an engineer with experience in this field and will pose many of these questions to him. I’ll let you know what I learn.
Thank you.
Marilyn
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Mayor, City of Alameda
510-747-4745
From: Abby Thorne-Lyman
To: Lara Weisiger; Roselena MejiaCampos
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fw: 7-B questions and comments Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:52:02 PM
Attachments: Questions from the Mayor 2_18.pdf
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 5:22 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Len Aslanian <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fw: 7-B questions and comments
Good evening Mayor,
Please find the pdf attached with responses from Pacific Fusion to your questions about the FAQ document (exhibit 4).
Thanks
Abby
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Alex Doniach <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 5:14:01 PM
To: Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>
Cc: Courtney Richardson <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jennifer Ott <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fw: 7-B questions and comments
Hi Abby,
Please see our responses to the Mayor's questions attached.
Thank you,
Alex
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 3:01 PM Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected] >
wrote:
Hi all
Please see the questions below from the Mayor and get us responses asap.
Thank you
Abby
Exh. 4, pg. 2 - Where would the power plant be built? Is PF contemplating Alameda Point for power plant location?
So health risk is radiation leak?
Does water from the passive water shield become irradiated? If so, where is water discharged?
Exh. 4, pg. 4 - PF’s fusion process uses lithium. We’ve seen lithium battery fires. Is there a fire danger associated with this facility?
Explain “weakly radioactive” and “short half-life.” What is tritium’s half-life? If “fusion does not create any long-lived radioactive waste,” does it create any radioactive waste? If so, how and where is this waste disposed?
Are the National Ignition Facility in Livermore, CA and the Z Facility in Albuquerque, NM located in as close proximity to a residential area as the potential Pacific Fusion site? Exh. 4, pg. 5 - Does this mean that “radiological waste brokers” will transport the radiological waste in trucks out of Alameda? Where is this waste disposed? Where will the tritium be sourced from?
Exh. 4, pg. 6 - Would Pacific Fusion consider locating a power plant at Alameda Point? Resolution, pg. 1 - I would like to see the ENA bifurcated so that PF is granted 12 months to decide if they want to locate this facility in Alameda or the other city they are also negotiating with. (Apparently this ENA is only “exclusive” for Alameda.) That way we don’t tie up the property for 2+ years which developers sometimes do to prevent others from acquiring it.
Correspondence: Bill Quirk letter, second to last paragraph, says, “Pacific Fusion must also demonstrate that any radiation is contained within a limited area of the facility and poses no risk to the surrounding community.” How will PF do that? Questions for the City Council 2/18 Exh. 4, pg. 2 - Where would the power plant be built? Is PF contemplating Alameda Point for power
plant
location?
● We are proposing an R&D facility for Alameda Point. We are not contemplating the location of a future
power
plant
at
this
time.
So health risk is radiation leak? ● Safety is our top priority. Our facility is designed with multiple layers of containment, and our processes
are
modeled
after
established
best
practices
used
in
medical
and
research
institutions
that
safely
handle
radiological
materials
daily.
○ For added context, our facility uses tritium, a weakly radioactive element (specifically, a beta
emitter).
It
has
similar
characteristics
to
products
used
in
hospitals
daily
for
certain
types
of
diagnostic
scans,
and
tritium
itself
is
used
as
a
medical
tracer.
● Like any hospital or research facility, we will comply with all requirements set by the California Department
of
Public
Health
to
ensure
there
is
no
risk
of
unsafe
radiation
exposure
to
our
employees
or
the
community.
The
State’s
licensure
process
sets
strict
limits
on
quantity,
storage
methods,
and
containment.
These
safeguards
are
designed
to
protect
public
health
and
safety.
Does water from the passive water shield become irradiated? If so, where is water discharged? ● The passive water shield is designed for safety. The deionized water in the water shield does not become
activated,
and
poses
no
safety
risk.
The
water
shield
is
contained
in
a
closed-loop
system
within
the
facility
(it
is
not
discharged).
Exh. 4, pg. 4 - PF’s fusion process uses lithium. We’ve seen lithium battery fires. Is there a fire danger
associated
with
this
facility?
● Our facility does not use lithium. (At future power plants, we will produce tritium from lithium, but this
is
not
the
case
for
PF’s
R&D
facility
under
discussion
in
Alameda.)
● Designing our facility and operations for fire safety is paramount. Like all R&D facilities in the area,
we
will
work
closely
with
the
City
and
County
Fire
Marshals
to
ensure
we
follow
all
governing
fire
codes
and
to
ensure
that
our
operational
plans
are
consistent
with
their
first-responder
action
plans.
Explain “weakly radioactive” and “short half-life.” What is tritium’s half-life? ● Tritium’s half life is 12.3 years. This is short compared to Carbon-14 (¹ ⁴ C) with a half-life of 5,730 years.
● ‘Weakly radioactive’ means low penetration ability. Tritium cannot penetrate human skin (or even a
single
sheet
of
paper),
and
does
not
self-emit
gamma
radiation
like
some
radioactive
isotopes.
If “fusion does not create any long-lived radioactive waste,” does it create any radioactive waste? If
so,
how
and
where
is
this
waste
disposed?
● Safety is our top priority and our facility will comply with all state and federal regulations with regard
to
waste
management
that
are
designed
to
prevent
any
release
of
radioactive
byproducts.
● Pacific Fusion’s operations will produce small quantities of low-level activated metal (roughly 200 gallons
per
month,
or
one
48”x48”
pallet).
This
waste
will
be
stored
in
State-approved
storage
containers
and
shipped
off
site
in
accordance
with
state-designated
procedures.
Are the National Ignition Facility in Livermore, CA and the Z Facility in Albuquerque, NM located in as
close
proximity
to
a
residential
area
as
the
potential
Pacific
Fusion
site?
● The Pacific Fusion Site is approximately 1100 feet from the closest residential area (Central Ave). ● The National Ignition Facility in Livermore is located approximately 850 feet to the nearest residential
area.
● The Z Facility in Albuquerque is located approximately 5000 feet from the nearest residential area.
Exh. 4, pg. 5 - Does this mean that “radiological waste brokers” will transport the radiological waste
in
trucks
out
of
Alameda?
Where
is
this
waste
disposed
of?
● The California Department of Public Health oversees our radiological licensing, ensuring that materials
pose
no
risk
to
the
surrounding
community
and
are
properly
disposed
of
—
similar
to
how
hospitals
and
research
institutions
manage
radiological
materials.
● Transport of radiological waste is and will be coordinated using strict government standards. The actual
transportation
will
be
done
by
government-approved
brokers.
The
waste
will
be
disposed
of
at
designated
waste
facilities
in
accordance
with
state-mandated
protocols.
Where will the tritium be sourced from? ● Tritium will be provided by the Department of Energy. Exh. 4, pg. 6 - Would Pacific Fusion consider locating a power plant at Alameda Point? ● We are proposing an R&D facility for Alameda Point. We are not contemplating the location of a future
power
plant
at
this
time.
Resolution, pg. 1 - I would like to see the ENA bifurcated so that PF is granted 12 months to decide
if
they
want
to
locate
this
facility
in
Alameda
or
the
other
city
they
are
also
negotiating
with.
(Apparently
this
ENA
is
only
“exclusive”
for
Alameda.)
That
way
we
don’t
tie
up
the
property
for
2+
years
which
developers
sometimes
do
to
prevent
others
from
acquiring
it.
● Pacific Fusion intends to make a final site selection decision in 2025. Actual schedule will depend on
entitlement
and
permitting
schedules,
which
we
intend
to
pursue
as
expediently
and
efficiently
as
possible
in
collaboration
with
the
city.
Correspondence: Bill Quirk letter, second to last paragraph, says, “Pacific Fusion must also demonstrate
that
any
radiation
is
contained
within
a
limited
area
of
the
facility
and
poses
no
risk
to
the
surrounding
community.”
How
will
PF
do
that?
● Safety is our top priority. California’s Radiologic Health Branch oversees our radiological licensing,
ensuring
that
materials
pose
no
risk
to
the
surrounding
community
and
are
properly
stored,
monitored,
and
handled
safely
—
similar
to
how
hospitals
and
research
institutions
manage
radiological
materials.
● The licensing process requires a validated plan for safe operations, material storage, byproduct waste
management,
and
system
decommissioning.
The
licensing
process
also
includes
ensuring
safe
operations
with
tritium,
which
includes
monitoring
radiation
produced
during
the
fusion
process.
● We will work with the state to ensure and demonstrate the safety of our operations, complying with
all
regulations
and
best
practices
for
handling
radiological
materials .