ML12353A103
| ML12353A103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/2012 |
| From: | Mcnair N - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Apostolakis G, Macfarlane A, Magwood W, Ostendorff W, Kristine Svinicki NRC/Chairman, NRC/OCM/AMM, NRC/OCM/GEA, NRC/OCM/KLS, NRC/OCM/WCO, NRC/OCM/WDM |
| craver, patti | |
| References | |
| G20120954, LTR-12-0778 | |
| Download: ML12353A103 (2) | |
Text
-, r Joosten, Sandy LE-S' M212 From:
JK [velvetsnout@gmail.com]
/
Sent:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:17 PM To:
CHAIRMAN Resource; CMRSVINICKI Resource; CMRAPOSTOLAKIS Resour LN -
CMRMAGWOOD Resource; CMROSTENDORFF Resource DEDMRT
Subject:
San Onofre.
DEDR DEDGM AO
Dear Senators Boxer and Feinstein,
and NRC Commissioners, Qk\\,
As one of almost 9 million residents, parents, business owners, workers and/or students within 50 miles of the defective nuclear reactors at San Onofre in Southern California, I am very disappointed and angry that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff is holding a "public meeting" on the operator's proposed restart of one of these defective reactors one week before Christmas at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. NOT in the vicinity of the plant, where those of us most impacted by the NRC's decision on this proposal can attend in person.
I accept the fact that not everyone who attends an NRC public meeting in person and wants to speak will have a chance to do so, but at least those who do speak are in a forum where local citizens are present, as well as our local media. Limiting us and our local media to indirect, one-way access to the meeting via Webcast is NOT in the public's best interest. The NRC has an obligation to put our needs before NRC staff's convenience. While Webcasting and a Telephone Bridge may be appropriate for those who live far from the plant under discussion or could not physically attend the meeting, it is certainly a disservice to those of us who stand directly in harm's way if things go terribly wrong.
I demand that the NRC Staff reschedule this "Category I Public Meeting" until after the New Year to a location readily accessible to the public impacted by the NRC's decision on Edison's proposal to restart this defective nuclear reactor in our midst.
On the NRC's website, "Important Information for Meeting Attendees," describes "Category I Public Meetings" (such as this one) in the NRC's open meeting policy as: 'The public is invited to observe these meetings and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned."
How are the "opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned" afforded when public access is primarly via one-way Webeast and/or Telephone Bridge? EFFECTIVE "open public meetings" must be held in the area impacted by the action or decision being contemplated by the NRC.
My trust in the NRC, and that of many others in the vicinity of San Onofre, can only be restored by our personal witness of the NRC in action and the ability to ask questions interactively. NO TRUST. NO RESTART.
Sincerely,
.V Joosten, Sandy From:
Neena McNair [neenamcnair@gmail.com]
Sent:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:42 PM To:
CHAIRMAN Resource; CMRSVINICKI Resource; CMRAPOSTOLAKIS Resource; CMRMAGWOOD Resource; CMROSTENDORFF Resource
Subject:
NRC public meeting: Reopening of San Onofre nuclear power plant
Dear Senators Boxer and Feinstein,
and NRC Commissioners, I live in California, and I am writing to question why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff is holding a "public meeting", on the operator's proposed restart of a defective reactor, one week before Christmas at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, NOT in the vicinity of the plant, where those of us most impacted by the NRC's decision on this proposal should be allowed the opportunity to attend in person.
I suggest that this reprehensible act is designed to keep people, who might speak about the imminent and immediate effects of the reopening of the San Onofre plant, unable to input. It would appear that such a "public meeting" would be to allow just such input. I think it's VERY important to people in the local area who would be most affected by such a reopening, AND the local media to be present at said meeting. Of course, holding it the ENTIRE country away will make it VERY difficult for the proper and requisite input. I maintain that it is the NRC's public OBLIGATION to have this meeting where the effect of the reopening will have the most impact.
I demand that the NRC Staff reschedule this "Category I Public Meeting" until after the New Year to a location, in Southern California, closest to the public who will be most impacted by the NRC's decision on Edison's proposal to restart this defective nuclear reactor. The NRC's website, "Important Information for Meeting Attendees," describes "Category 1 Public Meetings" (such as this one) in the NRC's open meeting policy as:
'The public is invited to observe these meetings and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned'." This implied interaction becomes a moot point when the location is 3000 miles away from the people who would be most likely to comment.
We ALL know, particularly after the Fukishima disaster, just how fragile the balance is with nuclear reactors. I personally disagree with the reopening of the defective San Onofre plant, however, according to your own guidelines, the public must have its comment period and decisions made according to the voice of ALL the people.
I trust that you will uphold faith and the will of the people you represent.
Sincerely, Neena McNair Nevada City, California 1