ML13134A408: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Gallagher, Carol From: Lillian Laskin <lillianlaskin@gmail.com> | {{#Wiki_filter:Gallagher, Carol From: Lillian Laskin <lillianlaskin@gmail.com> | ||
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:20 PM To: Gallagher, Carol | Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:20 PM To: Gallagher, Carol | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Oppose Edison Licensing Amendment and Oppose the No Significant Hazard Request: FR Doc# 2013-08888 I urge you to not allow the Edison's licensing amendment to San Onofre Unit Two. It must not be restarted based on operation to 70%of the maximum power level.Why is the NRC's granting Edison this license to restart the reactor with a safety hearing only after the reactor is put back in commission? | Oppose Edison Licensing Amendment and Oppose the No Significant Hazard Request: | ||
San Onofre should not be restarted at all. It is an accident waiting to happen!I also oppose the No Significant Hazard request. It's insane to restart Unit 2 with the damaged generators without repairing and replacing them.8.5 million people live within 50 miles of San Onofre. There are massive earthquake faults near. The radio activity with immense amount of heat inside these cores could cause a meltdown even after being shut down.Edison built the reactors thinking they would never have to replace the steam generators. | FR Doc# 2013-08888 I urge you to not allow the Edison's licensing amendment to San Onofre Unit Two. It must not be restarted based on operation to 70% | ||
The original steam generators and new replacement generators were damaged before the time specified that they should last. The new ones failed within a year -and should have lasted 40 yrs. Thousands of indications of wear was found on the tubes as well as thousands of indications on other units that had been shut down for maintenance. | of the maximum power level. | ||
Generators are critical to safety as they extract heat from the core so the fuel doesn't melt, and will have a direct pathway out of the containment. | Why is the NRC's granting Edison this license to restart the reactor with a safety hearing only after the reactor is put back in commission? | ||
If any melting occurs, the radiation can escape directly into the environment. | San Onofre should not be restarted at all. It is an accident waiting to happen! | ||
The designers didn't build a hatch into the containment to get the old generator out and put in a new one. They cut a massive hole in the containment structure, The Containment is intact with radio activity.When the NRC 30 years ago estimated that | I also oppose the No Significant Hazard request. It's insane to restart Unit 2 with the damaged generators without repairing and replacing them. | ||
And today those numbers would be greatly increased. | 8.5 million people live within 50 miles of San Onofre. There are massive earthquake faults near. The radio activity with immense amount of heat inside these cores could cause a meltdown even after being shut down. | ||
This is not a chance worth taking. Once an accident happens, you cannot take back all the harm done. This weakened licensing amendment should not be granted and also the No Significant Safety Hazard should not be granted.Sincerely, Lillian Laskin Los Angeles <vr-ri CJJ | Edison built the reactors thinking they would never have to replace the steam generators. The original steam generators and new replacement generators were damaged before the time specified that they should last. The new ones failed within a year -and should have lasted 40 yrs. Thousands of indications of wear was found on the tubes as well as thousands of indications on other units that had been shut down for maintenance. Generators are critical to safety as they extract heat from the core so the fuel doesn't melt, and will have a direct pathway out of the containment. If any melting occurs, the radiation can escape directly into the environment. The designers didn't build a hatch into the containment to get the old generator out and put in a new one. They cut a massive hole in the containment structure, The Containment is intact with radio activity. | ||
When the NRC 30 years ago estimated that ifan accident at San Onofre happened, there would be 130,000 immediate deaths; Nagasaki, Hiroshima radiation illnesses; 300,000 cancers, and 600,000 genetic affects. That means more than one million casualties. And today those numbers would be greatly increased. | |||
This is not a chance worth taking. Once an accident happens, you cannot take back all the harm done. This weakened licensing amendment should not be granted and also the No Significant Safety Hazard should not be granted. | |||
Sincerely, Lillian Laskin Los Angeles - | |||
0 | |||
-< | |||
vr-ri m CJJ -- | |||
SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM - 013 E-RIDS= ADM -03}} | |||
Revision as of 19:11, 4 November 2019
| ML13134A408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/2013 |
| From: | Laskin L - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Carol Gallagher Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch |
| References | |
| 78FR22576 00067, FR Doc#2013-08888 | |
| Download: ML13134A408 (1) | |
Text
Gallagher, Carol From: Lillian Laskin <lillianlaskin@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:20 PM To: Gallagher, Carol
Subject:
Oppose Edison Licensing Amendment and Oppose the No Significant Hazard Request:
FR Doc# 2013-08888 I urge you to not allow the Edison's licensing amendment to San Onofre Unit Two. It must not be restarted based on operation to 70%
of the maximum power level.
Why is the NRC's granting Edison this license to restart the reactor with a safety hearing only after the reactor is put back in commission?
San Onofre should not be restarted at all. It is an accident waiting to happen!
I also oppose the No Significant Hazard request. It's insane to restart Unit 2 with the damaged generators without repairing and replacing them.
8.5 million people live within 50 miles of San Onofre. There are massive earthquake faults near. The radio activity with immense amount of heat inside these cores could cause a meltdown even after being shut down.
Edison built the reactors thinking they would never have to replace the steam generators. The original steam generators and new replacement generators were damaged before the time specified that they should last. The new ones failed within a year -and should have lasted 40 yrs. Thousands of indications of wear was found on the tubes as well as thousands of indications on other units that had been shut down for maintenance. Generators are critical to safety as they extract heat from the core so the fuel doesn't melt, and will have a direct pathway out of the containment. If any melting occurs, the radiation can escape directly into the environment. The designers didn't build a hatch into the containment to get the old generator out and put in a new one. They cut a massive hole in the containment structure, The Containment is intact with radio activity.
When the NRC 30 years ago estimated that ifan accident at San Onofre happened, there would be 130,000 immediate deaths; Nagasaki, Hiroshima radiation illnesses; 300,000 cancers, and 600,000 genetic affects. That means more than one million casualties. And today those numbers would be greatly increased.
This is not a chance worth taking. Once an accident happens, you cannot take back all the harm done. This weakened licensing amendment should not be granted and also the No Significant Safety Hazard should not be granted.
Sincerely, Lillian Laskin Los Angeles -
0
-<
vr-ri m CJJ --
SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM - 013 E-RIDS= ADM -03