|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML20161A0122020-06-0808 June 2020 Comment (48) of Martin Kral on Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project ML20115E5482020-04-24024 April 2020 Comment (23) of Pam and Greg Nelson on Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project ML18155A3262018-06-0404 June 2018 Comment (49) of Eva M. O'Keefe on Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste Scoping Study ML18158A1872018-06-0101 June 2018 Comment (51) of Gayle Smith Concerning Nuclear Waste in San Onofre Research and Action Is Needed to Protect the Public ML18158A1862018-05-29029 May 2018 Comment (50) of Joanna Mathews Concerning San Onofre Nuclear Station to Find a Permanent Solution for the Nuclear Waste ML18155A3252018-05-29029 May 2018 Comment (48) of Quentin De Bruyn Opposing to San Onofre Waste Situation ML18066A5612018-03-0707 March 2018 Comment (161) of Matt Collins Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5552018-03-0707 March 2018 Comment (157) of Kathleen Morris Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5582018-03-0707 March 2018 Comment (159) of Anonymous on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5292018-01-22022 January 2018 Comment (140) of Patricia Martz Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5262018-01-22022 January 2018 Comment (139) of Abell Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5252018-01-22022 January 2018 Comment (138) of Michelle Schumacher Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5532018-01-22022 January 2018 Comment (155) of Jan Boudart on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5302018-01-16016 January 2018 Comment (141) of Erin Koch on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5322018-01-10010 January 2018 Comment 142 of Dave Rice on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5372018-01-0808 January 2018 Comment (146) of Carey Strombotne on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5392018-01-0404 January 2018 Comment 147 of Phoebe Sorgen on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5512018-01-0303 January 2018 Comment (153) of Alexander Bay Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5562018-01-0303 January 2018 Comment (158) of Lee Mclendon Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5492018-01-0303 January 2018 Comment (152) of Shari Horne Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18066A5242018-01-0303 January 2018 Comment (137) of Joseph Gildner Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5962018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (60) of Matthew Stein Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1932018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (44) of Mha Atma S. Khalsa Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5952018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (59) of Chelsea Anonymous Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1952018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (45) of T. Strohmeier on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5932018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (57) of Patrick Bosold Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5702018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (56) of Katya Gaynor on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5692018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (55) of Robert Hensley on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5672018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (54) of Angela Sarich Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1972018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (46) of Cheryl Harding Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5632018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (52) of Viraja Prema on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A5622018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (51) of Larisa Stow-Norman Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A4982018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (66) of Nancy Alexander Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18033A4962018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (65) of Lorna Farnun Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A2002018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (49) of Starr Cornwall Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1992018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (48) of Daryl Gale on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6822018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (94) of Jennifer Quest on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18032A1922018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (43) of Frances Howard Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6992018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (108) from Anonymous Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities; Request for Comment on Draft NUREG ML18037A6972018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (107) of Diana Dehm on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6922018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (104) of Ari Marsh on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6912018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (103) Christina Koppisch Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities; Request for Comment on Draft NUREG ML18037A6902018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (102) of Helen Hanna on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6892018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (100) of Cindy Koch Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6882018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (101) Angela Ravenwood Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities; Request for Comment on Draft NUREG ML18037A6872018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (99) of Melissa Brizzie Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18036A1912018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (72) of J. C. Chernicky Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6812018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (93) of Ricardo Toro Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18037A6802018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (92) of Stan Weber Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities ML18036A2082018-01-0202 January 2018 Comment (89) of B. Grace on Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities 2020-06-08
[Table view] |
Text
Joosten, Sandy From: Sierra Club [information@sierraclub.org] on behalf of Susan Brown [soulmagicl2@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:31 PM To: CHAIRMAN Resource
Subject:
We Call on the NRC to Dismiss Licensing Shortcuts for the Failed San Onofre Nuclear Units Apr 17, 2013 k -
Chairperson Allison M. Macfarlane i 7" 11555 Rockville Pike 7--1 2-Rockville, MD 20852 -- -)
C)
Dear Chairperson Macfarlane,
r We ask that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take no action that could lead to any restart of the San Onofre nuclear power plant before the Commission completes its comprehensive investigation and provides full opportunity for public participation.
Southern California Edison (SCE) is seeking to shortcut the license review process by urging the NRC to declare that a license amendment that would enable the restart of the San Onofre facility at 70% power involves no significant hazards. We believe that the public deserves a full and transparent review of the failed San Onofre generators before the NRC considers any potential restart.
In a word play, Edison claims it seeks a "license amendment" a phrase that properly refers only to the process provided by an Adjudicated License Amendment with sworn witnesses, evidentiary hearings and a judicial decision.
Speeding restart of San Onofre through a so-called "license amendment" that shortcuts procedures is totally inappropriate given the troubled history and current condition of the plant, let alone the level of public concern.
SCE's request to weaken its license requirements was made despite evidence showing that there could be a significant hazard from the operation of the deficient steam generators.
Please completely dismiss Edison's request. This latest maneuver by Edison appears to be merely a last-ditch, desperate attempt to avoid a full, public review by the NRC.
I support the call by the Sierra Club for the NRC to dismiss requests by Southern California Edison to shortcut a full license review process for the failed San Onofre nuclear generators. The public deserves better.
Please respond to Rep. Markey & Sen. Boxer's letter to you.
"We are writing to request that you immediately confirm that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Will take no action that could lead to any restart of San Onofre nuclear power plant Before the commission completes its comprehensive investigation and provides a full opportunity for public participation."...
Is San Onofre prepared for a possible EMP? Earthquake? Tsunami?
Terrorist Attack? Do you have any studies that show the consequences and how you will deal with it? Do you have a current workable evacuation plan?
SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM - 013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= B. Benney (bjb)
Please do not sidestep federal regulation and deny the public meaningful hearings with appropriate safety reports that address all of our concerns. Hopefully all meetings will be held in southern California...
At your April 3rd meeting (in Maryland) John Geesman (sp), who is a former board member ISO, a past member of the ca energy commission during davis/schwarzenegger's terms asked this question:
"Based on infohmation edison has turned over for investigation being conducted by cpuc, even if both units 2, unit 3 were working perfectly, there were only 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> in 2012 when they would have been competitive with the market price for power in so. california. That's only 1%
of the time. Why are we putting ourselves through so much regulatory pain and suffering for a plant that is not cost effective 99% of the time?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GswNqQ82bW4&feature=Voutu.be Is this restart being done simply so that Edison can continue charging customers?
There are far too many problems. Huge safety issues and questions, failure to address problems with citizen evacuation, failure to adequately address potential earthquake, tsunami, EMP, aircraft or other hazards that could result in a disaster and other problems. I would like to see your full nuclear disaster preparedness plan, Please do the right thing. We do not need San Onofre! Please move on to clean, safe, sustainable energy.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean energy/smart-energv-solutions/increase- renewables/infographic-ramping-up-renewable-energy.html?utm source=fb&utm medium=fb&utm campaign=fb Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
Ms. Susan Brown La Mesa La Mesa, CA 91942 2