Text

LTR-13-0262 - Laura Lynch Et. Al. E-mail Concerns Issues at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and Requests the 4/3 Meeting to Address Edison'S License Amendment Request Take Place in Southern California
	ML13087A226
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	03/26/2013
From:	Lynch L, Brown S, Mahood-Jose E, Reson M, Schiller D, Cherwink R, Falchi J; - No Known Affiliation
To:	Macfarlane A, Boxer B, Jason Paige, Waxman H; NRC/Chairman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US HR, Comm on Commerce, US SEN, Comm on Environment & Public Works
References
	LTR-13-0262
	Download: ML13087A226 (15)
	v • d • e

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Mar 27, 2013 13:25 PAPER NUMBER: LTR- 13-0262 LOGGING DATE: 03/27/2013 ACTION OFFICE: EDo0 0A -o , N~2 AUTHOR: Laura Lynch, et al. 1 k AFFILIATION: CA ADDRESSEE: Chairman Resource

SUBJECT:

Concerns issues at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and requests the 4/3 meeting to address Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California ACTION: Appropriate DISTRIBUTION: RF, SECY to Ack.

LETTER DATE: 03/26/201'3 ACKNOWLEDGED No SPECIAL HANDLING: EDO/OPA Lead office to publicly release 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after SECY's assignment, via SECY/EDO/DPC.

NOTES: Multiple similar e-mails received requesting the 4/3 meeting be held in Southern California.

FILE LOCATION: ADAMS DATE DUE: DATE SIGNED:

Joosten, Sandy From: Laura Lynch [artistlauralynch@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:19 PM To: CHAIRMAN Resource

Subject:

NRC, SCE, SAN ONOFRE RESTART

Dear Chairman Macfarlane,

below is a copy of a letter that I have sent to Senator Boxer and indicated to her my concerns of the right of citizens to a full, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough license amendment process to be upheld, that the NRC reject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting on April 3, 2013 scheduled in Rockville MD to address Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California and not on the other side of the country. Thank you for your immediate attention to this crucial matter before us.

Sincerely, Laura Lynch Santa Barbara, CA.

Dear Chairman Boxer:

I write to express my deepest. appreciation for your attention and leadership on issues related to the San Onofre nuclear reactors. I applaud your leadership in revealing a previously confidential report from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that showed Edison had foreknowledge of serious safety concerns with the steam generators years before they were installed, which resulted in a redacted version of that report being released and Edison's culpability being made public.

I was encouraged when Congressman Waxman questioned Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Macfarlane about the need for San Onofre operator, Southern California Edison, to obtain a license amendment prior to any decision being made regarding their experimental restart at partial power proposal for the damaged San Onofre reactor 2.

I am, however, deeply troubled by Edison's recent announcement that they are considering a voluntary license amendment request. While on its face, (this seems to be exactly what we have requested) it appears to be no more than another end run around federal regulations in order to expedite restart of their crippled reactor.

Specifically, Edison has indicated their intention to apply for a "No Significant Hazard Consideration" (NSHC) for this license amendment. This is nothing more than a regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slip through. An NSHC finding for this proposed license amendment would effectively strip the public of a meaningful role and necessary independent expert in a formal license amendment hearing that we are guaranteed under federal law, and which we have demanded. If the NRC acquiesces to Edison's demand for such a finding, it is unassailable - meaning any hearing that takes place would be no more than a dog and pony show; it could take place after the license amendment has been granted and would have no impact on the license amendment whatsoever - even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendment does pose more than a minor increase in the risk of an accident.

Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want to do every responsible thing we can to get Unit 2 up and running safely before the summer heat hits our region. While the NRC continues to review the technical materials we've submitted, we're considering a request for a license amendment so that we can pursue the best path to safe restart while avoiding unnecessary delays." The "unnecessary delays" to which he refers are in-depth technical inquiries into the veracity of Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federal regulations.

Such a request is hardly the "responsible" path forward. In essence, Edison is asking NRC staff to move the 1

jprocess'for restart forward, so that they can be up and running by summer - during peak demand when profits are greatest - before the NRC has even completedits technical review.

A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would be wholly inappropriate for restarting a nuclear reactor that has two of the most damaged and defective steam generators in the history of the US nuclear industry - the other two being in its twin reactor, San Onofre Unit 3, which Edison admits are experiencing a globally unique tube damage phenomenon.

This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporate culture that sets aside safety concerns in the interest of expediency and profits - a culture that was clearly demonstrated by the revelations in the recently release MHI documents that showed they did just that when originally designing these defective replacement steam generators. Their desire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatest profits placed the lives and livelihoods of the 8.7 million people living near these reactors at significant and unacceptable risk. Edison must not be allowed to do so again.

Recently, the California Independent Systems Operator stated that Southern California would be fine this summer without the relatively meager 750 MW that this experimental restart plan for one of the two crippled San Onofre reactors offers. Edison's claim of hurried restart in time for summer is in their interest - not that of the public.

Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between the NRC and Edison to discuss the license amendment and NSHC is to be held April 3 in Rockville, MD. It is fundamentally unacceptable to have this meeting to discuss such a critical issue on the opposite coast from the communities and people most impacted. The meeting should to be held in Southern California where our family members and those most impacted can can participate.

In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversight capacity that you ensure the right of citizens to a full, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough license amendment process be upheld, that the NRC reject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting to address Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California. (I will be sending a copy of this letter to the officials listed below).

Respectfully, Laura Lynch Santa Barbara, CA 93101 cc: Senator Diane Feinstein Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane. NRC Chair: Chairmanamnrc.gov R. William Borchardt, NRC Executive Director for Operations: Bill.Borchardt(Dvnrc.gov Eric Leeds, Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation: Eric.Leeds(n.nrc.uov Elmo Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV: Elmo.Collins(a)nrc.gzov Arthur Howell, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Art.Howell(2'anrc.gov Daniel Dorman,.Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Dan.Dorman((nrc.gov 2

Joosten, Sandy From: Rob [rcherwink@comcast.net]

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:13 PM To: CHAIRMAN Resource Cc: Borchardt, Bill; Leeds, Eric; Collins, Elmo; Howell, Art; Dorman, Dan

Subject:

Southern California Edison NSHC and Request for License Amendment March 26, 2013 The Honorable Barbara Boxer Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm Committee Office Phone: 202-224-8832 The Honorable Henry Waxman Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives 2322 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 For Residents of the 33rd Cong. District ONLY: https://waxman.house.gov/contact-me/email-me Washington DC Office Phone: (202) 225-3976 Cc: Senator Diane Feinstein: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me Alison Macfarlane, NRC Chair: Chairman@nrc.gov R. William Borchardt, NRC Executive Director for Operations: Bill.Borchardt@nrc.gov Eric Leeds , Director* Nuclear Reactor Regulation:

Eric.Leeds@nrc.gov Elmo Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV: Elmo.Collins@nrc.gov Arthur Howell, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Art.Howell@nrc.gov Daniel Dorman, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Dan.Dorman@nr.gov

Dear Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Waxman:

I write to express my deepest appreciation for your attention and leadership on issues related to the San Onofre nuclear reactors. I applaud Senator Boxer's leadership in revealing a previously confidential report from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that showed Edison had foreknowledge of serious safety concerns with the steam generators years before they were installed, which resulted in a redacted version of that report being released and Edison's culpability being made public. I was encouraged when Congressman Waxman questioned Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Macfarlane about the need for San Onofre operator, Southern California Edison, to obtain a license amendment prior to any decision being made regarding their experimental restart at partial power proposal for the damaged San Onofre reactor 2.

I am, however, deeply troubled by Edison's recent announcement that they are considering a voluntary license amendment request. While on its face, this seems to be exactly what we have requested, it appears to be no more than another end run around federal regulations in order to expedite restart of their crippled reactor. Specifically, Edison has indicated their intention to apply for a "No Significant Hazard Consideration" (NSHC) for this license amendment. This is nothing more than a regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slip through. An NSHC finding for this proposed license amendment would effectively strip the public of a meaningful role and necessary independent expert in a formal license amendment hearing that we are guaranteed under federal law, and which we have demanded. If the NRC acquiesces to Edison's demand for such a finding, it is unassailable - meaning any hearing that takes place would be no more than a dog and pony show; it could take place after the license amendment has been granted and would have no impact on the license amendment whatsoever - even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendment does pose more than a minor increase in the risk of an accident.

Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want to do every responsible thing we can do to get Unit 2 up and running safely before the summer heat hits our region. While the NRC continues to review the technical materials we've submitted, we're considering a request for a license amendment so that we can pursue the best path to safe restart while avoiding unnecessary delays." The "'unnecessary delays" to which he refers are in-depth technical inquiries into the veracity of Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federal regulations. Such a request is hardly the "responsible" path forward. In essence, Edison is asking NRC staff to move the process for restart forward, so that they can be up and running by summer - during peak demand when profits are greatest - before the NRC has even completed its technical review.

A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would be wholly inappropriate for restarting a nuclear reactor that has two of the most damaged and defective steam generators in the history of the US nuclear industry - the other one being in its twin reactor, San Onofre Unit 3, which Edison admits are experiencing a globally unique tube damage phenomenon.

This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporate culture that sets aside safety concerns in the interest of expediency and profits - a culture that was clearly demonstrated by the revelations in the recently release MHI documents that showed they did just that when originally designing these defective replacement steam generators. Their desire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatest profits placed the lives and livelihoods of the 8.7 million people living near these reactors at significant and unacceptable risk. Edison must not be allowed to do so again.

Recently, the California Independent Systems.Operator stated that Southern California would be fine this summer without the relatively meager 750 MW that this experimental restart plan for one of the two crippled San Onofre reactors offers. Edison's claim of hurried restart in time for summer is in their interest - not that of the public.

Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between the NRC and Edison to discuss the license amendment and NSHC is to be held April 3 in Rockville, MD. It is fundamentally unacceptable to have this meeting to discuss such a critical issue on the opposite coast from the communities most impacted. The meeting ought to be held in Southern California where my neighbors and I can participate.

In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversight capacity, you ensure that the right of citizens to a full, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough license amendment process is upheld, that the NRC reject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting to address Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California.

Sincerely, Robert Cherwink, Sonoma, CA 95476 2

Joosten, Sandy From: John Falchi [pacerjp4693@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:58 PM To: pacerjp4693@sbcglobal.net Cc: CHAIRMAN Resource; Borchardt, Bill; Leeds, Eric; Collins, Elmo; Howell, Art; Dan.Dorman@nr.gov

Subject:

re: Request related to San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant The Honorable Barbara Boxer Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 htup:!,/cpv,. ;cnatc c~ tifF 'c ci~ ":C0111tu

%-vpnicm lJS.

Dear Chairman Boxer:

I write to express my deepest appreciation for your attention and leadership on issues related to the San Onofre nuclear reactors. I applaud Senator Boxer's leadership in revealing a previously confidential report from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that showed Edison had foreknowledge of serious safety concerns with the steam generators years before they were installed, which resulted in a redacted version of that report being released and Edison's culpability being made public. I was encouraged when Congressman Waxman questioned Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Macfarlane about the need for San Onofre operator, Southern California Edison, to obtain a license amendment prior to any decision being made regarding their experimental restart at partial power proposal for the damaged San Onofre reactor 2.

I am, however, deeply troubled by Edison's recent announcement that they are considering a voluntary license amendment request. While on its face, this seems to be exactly what we have requested, it appears to be no more than another end run around federal regulations in order to expedite restart of their crippled reactor. Specifically, Edison has indicated their intention to apply fbr a "No Significant Hazard Consideration" (NSHC) for this license amendment. This is nothing more than a regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slip through.

An NSHC finding for this proposed license amendment would effectively strip the public of a meaningful role and necessary independent expert in a formal license amendment hearing that we are guaranteed under federal law, and which we have demanded. If the NRC acquiesces to Edison's demand for such a finding, it is unassailable - meaning any hearing that takes place would be no more than a dog and pony show; it could take place after the license amendment has been granted and would have no impact on the license amendment whatsoever -

even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendment does pose more than a minor increase in the risk of an accident.

Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want to do every responsible thing we can do to get Unit 2 up and running safely before the summer heat hits our region. While the NRC continues to review the technical materials we've submitted, we're considering a request for a license amendment so that we can pursue the best path to safe restart while 1

avoiding unnecessary delays." The "unnecessary delays" to which he refers are in-depth technical inquiries into the veracity of Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federal regulations. Such a request is hardly the "responsible" path forward. In essence. Edison is asking NRC staff to move the process for restart forward, so that they can be up and running by summer - during peak demand when profits are greatest -

before the NRC has even completed its technical review.

A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would be wholly inappropriate for restarting a nuclear reactor that has two of the most damaged and defective steam generators in the history of the US nuclear industry - the other two being in its twin reactor, San Onofre Unit 3, which Edison admits are experiencing a globally unique tube damage phenomenon.

This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporate culture that sets aside safety concerns in the interest of expediency and profits - a culture that was clearly demonstrated by the revelations in the recently release MHI documents that showed they did just that when originally designing these defective replacement steam generators. Their desire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatest profits placed the lives and livelihoods of the 8.7 million people living near these reactors at significant and unacceptable risk.

Edison must not be allowed to do so again.

Recently, the California Independent Systems Operator stated that Southern California would be fine this summer without the relatively meager 750 MW that this experimental restart plan for one of the two crippled San Onofre reactors offers. Edison's claim of hurried restart in time for summer is in their interest -

not that of the pfsblic.

Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between the NRC and Edison to discuss the license amendment and NSHC is to be held April 3 in Rockville, MD. It is fundamentally unacceptable to have this meeting to discuss such a critical issue on the opposite coast from the communities most impacted. The meeting ought to be held in Southern California where my neighbors and I can participate.

In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversight capacity, you ensure that the right of citizens to a full, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough license amendment process is upheld, that the NRC reject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting to address Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California.

Sincerely, John P. Falchi San Diego, CA 92107 View Post on Facebook Edit Email Settings , Reply to this email to add a comment.

2

Joosten, Sandy From: myla reson [myla.reson@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:21 PM To: Paige, Jason Cc: Howell, Art; SCG-Team Team; Dricks, Victor; CHAIRMAN Resource; Hall, Randy; Kendra Ulrich; Ace Hoffman; Andy Shrader; Martin Schlageter; Lisa Pinto; Lee Haydu; Mike Bonin; Marcy Winograd; Randy Ziglar

Subject:

Query re SoCal Public Meeting on San Onofre Restart Hi Jason, Thanks for following up on my query about whether or not concerned members of the public will have an opportunity to participate in an NRC "Public Meeting" in Southern California prior Southern California Edison's being allowed to restart its San Onofre Unit 2 reactor. I placed "Public Meeting" within quotation marks because your next so-called "Public Meeting" (April 3, 2013) will be located thousands of miles away from the communities most directly impacted by Edison's San Onofre nuclear plant.

If Southern California Edison does apply for a license amendment to run its San Onofre nuclear plant at reduced power for five months "with no significant hazard", will the NRC convene a public meeting in Southern California prior to granting that license amendment?

Of course a public meeting in Southern California is not a suffient substitute for a full, transparent Adjudicatory Hearing and License Amendment process adressing a wide range of concerns including the fundamental design changes in the San Onofre replacement steam generators and the potential for a long overdue great earthquake and tsunami - The amendment process should include evidentiary hearings with sworn testimony and cross-examination which include experts independent of the NRC, Edison and the nuclear power industry.

I look forward to your reply.

Myla Reson San Onofre Danger Zone Resident Myla Reson Follow me on Twitter What Part of Fukushima Do You NOT Understand?

"A common denominator, in every single nuclear accident -- a nuclear plant or on a nuclear submarine -- is that before the specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saving, 'There's no danger to the public.' They do this before they themselves know what has happened because they are terrified that the public might react violently, either by panic or by revolt." - Jaceue Cousteau. 1Q8q 1

Joosten, Sandy From: Seren Dippi [serendippi@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:58 AM To: CHAIRMAN Resource Cc: Borchardt, Bill; Leeds, Eric; Collins, Elmo; Howell, Art; Dorman, Dan

Subject:

San Onofre nuclear reactors Sent to Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works (via web form)

In regard to the San Onofre nuclear reactors. I would like to request that the NRC re-schedule the 4/3 "public meeting" to allow citizen participation.

I applaud Senator Boxer's leadership in revealing a previously confidential report from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that showed Edison had foreknowledge of serious safety concerns with the steam generators years before they were installed, which resulted in a redacted version of that report being released and Edison's culpability being made public. I was encouraged when Congressman Waxman questioned Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Macfarlane about the need for San Onofre operator, Southern California Edison, to obtain a license amendment prior to any decision being made regarding their experimental restart at partial power proposal for the damaged San Onofre reactor 2.

I am deeply troubled by SoCal Edison's recent announcement that they are considering a voluntary license amendment request. While on its face, this seems to be exactly what we have requested, it appears to be no more than another end run around federal regulations in order to expedite restart of their crippled reactor.

Specifically, Edison has indicated their intention to apply for a "No Significant Hazard Consideration" (NSHC) for this license amendment. This is nothing more than a regulatory loophole that Edison is attempting to slip through. An NSHC finding for this proposed license amendment would effectively strip the public of a meaningful role and necessary independent expert in a formal license amendment hearing that we are guaranteed under federal law, and which we have demanded. If the NRC acquiesces to Edison's demand for such a finding, it is unassailable - meaning any hearing that takes place would be no more than a dog and pony show; it could take place after the license amendment has been granted and would have no impact on the license amendment whatsoever - even if independent experts demonstrate that the amendment does pose more than a minor increase in the risk of an accident.

Edison President Ronald Litzinger said recently, "We want to do every responsible thing we can do to get Unit 2 up and running safely before the summer heat hits our region. While the NRC continues to review the technical materials we've submitted, we're considering a request for a license amendment so that we can pursue the best path to safe restart while avoiding unnecessary delays." The "unnecessary delays" to which he refers are in-depth technical inquiries into the veracity of Edison's claims of safety and compliance with federal regulations. Such a request is hardly the "responsible" path forward. In essence, Edison is asking NRC staff to move the process for restart forward, so that they can be up and running by summer - during peak demand when profits are greatest - before the NRC has even completed its technical review.

A rubberstamp finding of no significant hazard would be wholly inappropriate for restarting a nuclear reactor that has two of the most damaged and defective steam generators in the history of the US nuclear industry - the other two being in its twin reactor, San Onofre Unit 3, which Edison admits are experiencing a globally unique tube damage phenomenon.

This request on the part of Edison is indicative of a corporate culture that sets aside safety concerns in the interest of expediency and profits - a culture that was clearly demonstrated by the revelations in the recently release MHI documents that showed they did just that when originally designing these defective replacement 1

steam generators. Their desire to gamble on safety in order to rush forward for greatest profits placed the lives and livelihoods of the 8.7 million people living near these reactors at significant and unacceptable risk. Edison must not be allowed to do so again.

Recently, the California Independent Systems Operator stated that Southern California would be fine this summer without the relatively meager 750 MW that this experimental restart plan for one of the two crippled San Onofre reactors offers. Edison's claim of hurried restart in time for summer is in their interest - not that of the public.

Lastly, the NRC has announced that a meeting between the NRC and Edison to discuss the license amendment and NSHC is to be held April 3 in Rockville, MD. It is fundamentally unacceptable to have this meeting to discuss such a critical issue on the opposite coast from the communities most impacted. The meeting ought to be held in Southern California where my neighbors and I can participate.

In sum, I respectfully request that in your critical oversight capacity, you ensure that the right of citizens to a full, adjudicatory public hearing required for a thorough license amendment process is upheld, that the NRC reject Edison's NSHC request, and that the upcoming meeting to address Edison's license amendment request take place in Southern California.

Another point is that we do not need San Onofre or even Diablo. We have not had any power issues since San Onofre was shut down. I can provide further information on this if needed. You will find some information in the links below.

Looking to the future, I am hopeful that we can come up with some safe, clean alternative energy sources such as what Germany has had great success with. We don't need a fukishima in our backyard..

"Meanwhile, the conversion to green power in Germany is booming. When 8 reactors were shut and the conversion to wind, solar and biomass became official policy, "experts" predicated energy shortages and soaring prices. But the opposite has happened as supply has boomed and prices have dropped."

_http://www.alternet.org/einvironment/showdown-san-onofre-whv-nuc~ear-industrv,-may-be-dealt-biv-biow Even when nuclear power plants perform as designed, they present a problem: What to do with the radioactive wastes? Some types of spent fuel will be dangerous for 240,000 years, others for more than 2 million years.

What is being done to address this issue?

"San Onofre's Steam Generators: Significantly Worse than All Others Nationwide" -Former nuclear engineer and senior vice president of Fairewinds, Arnie Gundersen http://fairewinds.org Questions for officials:

Do you have a means of dealing with a full out nuclear disaster at San Onofre similar to Fukushima? Can you contain the radiation? Stop the meltdown? Safely dispose of the nuclear contamination such as spent fuel rods?

Evacuate the citizens?

San Onofre sits on active earthquake faults and is also right on the ocean. A quake will happen, a tsunami is inevitable. Just like Fukushima.

Songs is designed to resist a 7.0 earthquake - It is entirely possible that we will have one greater than 7.0.

The tsunami wall at San Onofre is 14 feet at high tide - The fuku tsunami was 45-65 feet high..

2

Is San Onofre prepared for a possible Solar Superstormn which could knock out all power and functionality of computers, communications etc.?

Solar 'superstorm' set to strike Earth - and we'll only have a 30 MINUTE warning http://www.dailvmail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2274605/Solar-superstorm-set-strike-Earth--30-MINUTE-warnin2.html#ixzz2KR3CVvTE Just shut songs down and work on safely removing the nuclear remains. It would save the government, the NRC, the ratepayors and others a lot of time and money.

Another point is that we do not need San Onofre or even Diablo. We have not had any power issues since San Onofre was shut down.

Further information on this in the links below.

I also have a question. What is the status on this initiative?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ieffmcmahon/201 3/02/08/initiative-would-shutter-california-nuclear-plants-for-decades-while-feds-ponder-waste/

"When all the trees have been cut down, When all the animals have been hunted, When all the waters are polluted, When all the air is unsafe to breathe, Only then will you discover.., you cannot eat money." - Cree Prophecy Please keep me informed regarding the San Onofre nuclear plant.

Sincerely, Susan Brown, a very concerned grandmother for your reference:

Nuclear Power is over. It's not a good business deal.

http://enenews.com/watch-top-economist-nuclear-power-is-over-frank-Iv-i-think-from-a-business-perspective-its-over-i-think-its-over-video Fairewinds Energy Education 40 of the nation's 104 operating commercial reactors experienced a near miss between 2010 and 2012.

https://www.facebook.com/fairewinds/posts/5736876526422 15 http://www.fairewinds.orL/content/are-whistleblowers-being-protected-nrc-not-reallv "California nuclear plant (San Onofre) a 'time bomb' if restarted - Chance of nuke disaster in U.S. very, very, very high... not if, but when" -Dr. Helen Caldicott http://enenewscom/caldicott-san-onofre-a-time-bomb-if-restarted-chance-of-nuelear-disaster-in-L-s-verv-hi Yh-its-not-if-but-when-video http://mvemail.coinstantcontact.com/Edison-gui tv-of-putting-PROF1T-before-SAFETY-and-another-i-npoi-tant-documentary-beinu-released-Saturdav-.html?soid= 11096601433 59&aid=Oq4r94i41TM http://nukefree.foe.orLinews/201 3-03 -san-onofre-restart-plan-would-cost-customers-I 50m http://www.sddt.com/Commentarv/article.cfmSourceCode=2013031.2tzb&Commentarv ID= 109& t=Are+util ity+reaulators+creating+a+banana+tepublic#.L UDHOFeirDd 3

http://www.latimes.com/business/monev/la-fi-mo-san-onofi-e-201303 13 .0.926769.story http://enenews.com/expert-report-shows-california-nuclear-plant-wi lI-pro eressively-destrov-itself-ap-could-breakdown -at-full -power-video http://losanaeles.cbslocal.com/20 13/03/18/san-onofre-nuclear-plant-could-break-down-at-full-power/?utm source=Update+-

+Inforrnation+overload+unavoidable&utm campaign=Goo2le+Analvtics+Test&utrn medium=socialshare http://sanonofresafetv.orL/?utm source=Update+-

+-Information+overload+unavoidable&utm campaign=Goo ,le+Analvtics+Test&utm medium=socialshare http://sanonofresafetv.org/safety-allegations-8/

http ://decornmission.sanonofre.com/2013/01 /sce-violated-federal-regs-and-public.html to Senator Boxer https ://boxer. senate. gov/en/contact/policvcomments.cfmn Cc:

Governor Jerry Brown http://gov.ca.gov/rn contact.php Senator Diane Feinstein: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/.index.cfm/e-mail-me (not my district couldn't email Cong. Waxman)

Congresswoman Susan Davis https://susandavisforms.house.Lov/forms/writeyourrep/

Alison Macfarlane, NRC Chair: Chairman(anrc.gov R. William Borchardt, NRC Executive Director for Operations: Bill.Borchardt(anrc. ov Eric Leeds , Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation: Eric.Leeds Rwnrc.gov Elmo Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV: Elrno.Collins(Dnrc.gov Arthur Howell, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Art.Howell(Zinrc.gov Daniel Dorman, Co-Chair, SONGS Oversight Panel: Dan.Dorman(F'mrc.gov 4

Joosten, Sandy From: Doris Schiller [dorisschiller55@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:51 PM To: CHAIRMAN Resource

Subject:

San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant Please do not allow SONGS to restart without hearings. Edison took a chance in not making changes necessary that would have prevented the recent leak. This company does not use enough care in the area of safety, no wonder since their liability is limited if they cause an accident. I do not have nuclear contamination insurance for my property. I will hold you responsible if there is an accident and my grandkids can't visit my home.

1

Joosten, Sandy From: Eileen Mahood-Jose [emahoodjose@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:28 AM To: CHAIRMAN Resource

Subject:

Edison's NSHC Request The Honorable Barbara Boxer Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ContactUs.ContactForm Committee Office Phone: 202-224-8832 The Honorable Henry Waxman Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives 2322 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 For Residents of the 33rd Cong, District ONLY:https://waxman.house.gov/contact-me/email-me Washington DC Office Phone: (202) 225-3976