|
---|
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: Sent: To:
Subject:
San Clemente Green [gary@sanclementegreen.org]
Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:41 PM CHAIRMAN Resource This is HUGE news for So Cal and beyond!i[u i-U I.C: i-r]FT-I 0.4=.0*0.A.j M C=)rn-C/)CO)--[eL (aLL C---,-- L R ý-40 k AT -ý i M WýMM T =71,016 P7 " F,; In, M ".7 In case you haven't heard the good news...FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 23, 2013 LI I t(0(Qo3 7g 14 c 5 7 CONTACT: Bill Walker, Friends of the Earth: (510) 759-9911 Paul Michael Neuman, office of Councilmember Koretz: (213) 473-7005 SAN ONOFRE: Los Angeles votes to oppose reactor restart without public hearings LA council joins other SoCal cities in concern over safety LOS ANGELES -The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously today to ask federal'regulators not to allow the restart of the crippled San Onofre nuclear reactors before the formal public process to determine whether Edison's experimental restart plan is safe and all needed repairs or replacements are completed.
The resolution by District 5 Councilmember Paul Koretz and District 11 Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, which passed 11-0, expresses support for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to: make no decision about restarting either San Onofre unit until it has fully reviewed public safety through a prudent, transparent, and precautionary process, has allowed independent experts and the public ample opportunity to comment, and has confirmed that SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= B. Benney (bjb)
Southern California Edison has completed any resulting mandated repairs, replacements, or other actions necessary to guarantee both short and long-term safe operation of San Onofre ... [The City also encourages the NRC] to take the time needed to independently determine whether or not the information, analysis and actions provided by Southern California Edison constitute a solid technical basis for the adequate protection of the public and resumption of operations.
LA joins a long list of Southern California cities that have expressed concerns about the safety of restarting either of San Onofre's twin reactors.
Both reactors have been shut down for almost a year, after a leak of radioactive steam led to the discovery of widespread and unprecedented damage to the reactors' recently installed replacement steam generators.
Edison has proposed to the NRC that it be allowed to restart reactor Unit 2 at partial power and run it as a five month test followed by two years of intermittent shutdowns and startups.
Edison has also requested a license amendment with a "no significant hazard" provision that would allow restart with a public hearing to be held only after the fact. NRC staff have given preliminary approval to Edison's request, but are taking public comments on the proposal through May 15."There is a growing consensus from cities in the Southland that Edison's restart plan amounts to a dangerous experiment that gambles with the safety of millions of Southern Californians," said S. David Freeman, former head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and a senior consultant to Friends of the Earth."There are serious questions about what went wrong at San Onofre, whether it can be fixed, and whether it is safe to operate that can only be answered adequately in a formal legal proceeding." Cities that have passed resolutions or sent letters of concern to the NRC include Del Mar, Encinitas, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Santa Monica, Solana Beach, Vista, Berkley and Fairfax. In addition, the San Diego Unified School District board 2 passed a similar resolution.
Acting on a petition from Friends of the Earth, the NRC is conducting two official proceedings which could require Edison to seek a full license amendment with adjudicated public hearings, expert testimony and rules of evidence.-- Join our Mailing List* San Clemente Green i San Onofre Safety (SOS)Forward this email This email was sent to chairman@nrc.gov by aarv(asanclementeareen.oro Undate Profile/Email Address Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe
'. Privacy Policy San Clemente Green 2837 Penasco 2837 Penasco i San Clemente I CA i 92673 3