|
|
Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:1 DiabloCanyonCEm Resource From: Jane Swanson [janeslo@kcbx.net] | | {{#Wiki_filter:DiabloCanyonCEm Resource From: Jane Swanson [janeslo@kcbx.net] |
| Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:00 PM To: DiabloCanyonEIS Resource | | Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:00 PM To: DiabloCanyonEIS Resource |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| statement made at March 3 meeting, San Luis Obispo Attachments: | | statement made at March 3 meeting, San Luis Obispo Attachments: scoping March 3 aft.doc; ATT00002.txt Attached for you convenience is the statement I read into the record at the 1:30 meeting March 3. |
| scoping March 3 aft.doc; ATT00002.txtAttached for you convenience is the statement I read into the record at the 1:30 meeting March 3. | | 1 |
|
| |
|
| Federal Register Notice: 75FR4427 Comment Number: 3 Mail Envelope Properties (BC1DED63-2BDB-457A-9BCB-B813025E059A) | | Federal Register Notice: 75FR4427 Comment Number: 3 Mail Envelope Properties (BC1DED63-2BDB-457A-9BCB-B813025E059A) |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| statement made at March 3 meeting, San Luis Obispo Sent Date: 3/3/2010 7:00:29 PM Received Date: 3/3/2010 7:00:34 PM From: Jane Swanson Created By: janeslo@kcbx.net Recipients: "DiabloCanyonEIS Resource" <DiabloCanyonEIS.Resource@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None | | statement made at March 3 meeting, San Luis Obispo Sent Date: 3/3/2010 7:00:29 PM Received Date: 3/3/2010 7:00:34 PM From: Jane Swanson Created By: janeslo@kcbx.net Recipients: |
| | "DiabloCanyonEIS Resource" <DiabloCanyonEIS.Resource@nrc.gov> |
| | Tracking Status: None Post Office: kcbx.net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 101 3/3/2010 7:00:34 PM scoping March 3 aft.doc 24128 ATT00002.txt 138 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: |
| | Recipients Received: |
|
| |
|
| Post Office: kcbx.net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 101 3/3/2010 7:00:34 PM scoping March 3 aft.doc 24128 ATT00002.txt 138
| | March 3, 2010, 1:30 session of NRC scoping meeting in San Luis Obispo TO: NRC Staff FROM: SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE RE: SLOMFP assessment of NRC scoping functions over 37 years My name is Jane Swanson, and this afternoon I am speaking for the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. This statement takes a long-range perspective. At the evening session SLOMFP will present 3 very specific scoping issues that fit within NRC criteria. |
| | Our non-profit group has served a unique role since 1973, when SLOMFP made the commitment to pursue available legal channels to oppose the licensing of the aptly-named Diablo: a nuclear plant and radioactive waste storage site built next to an active earthquake fault. Over the decades we have conducted an on-going assessment of the scoping of issues considered and not considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Now, 37 years later, we offer the executive summary of our decades long study. |
| | SLOMFP sees an adverse trend in the NRCs failure to interface with the real world. The agency has created a fictional reality- bubble, a labyrinth of rules and regulations that does not connect with the world inhabited by other federal agencies or the general public. |
| | I will offer just three examples of issues that have great potential for damaging the environment. |
| | EXAMPLE 1: THE CALIFORNIA COAST IS AN EARTHQUAKE ZONE: |
| | The NRC (then the Atomic Energy Commission) in 1984 and 1985 licensed Diablos two reactors, despite the fact that it was and remains against NRC regulations to allow nuclear facilities to be sited next to major, active earthquake faults. The Hosgri has not gone away; new faults have been discovered but not thoroughly studied. Include new seismic information as you consider another 20 years, and just say no. |
| | EXAMPLE 2: THERE IS NOWHERE TO STORE RADIOACTIVE WASTES |
|
| |
|
| Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:
| | The NRC consistently ignores the reality that there is no location, plan, or technology in place or on the horizon to isolate radioactive waste from the biosphere for the required quarter of a million years - or a million years if you accept EPA standards. The agency has already given 57 license extensions to other plants. Include the problems of additional wastes as you consider another 20 years, and just say no. |
| March 3, 2010, 1:30 session of NRC scoping meeting in San Luis Obispo
| | EXAMPLE 3: NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE TARGETS OF TERRORISTS The Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal agencies state that nuclear facilities are, by definition, targets of terrorists. And yet the NRC does not protect nuclear facilities with no-fly zones. Neither does it require nuclear plant operators to protect reactors or radioactive wastes from attack from the air. NRC regulations consider it sufficient to out-source mitigation of any such attack to the military. In the real world, a fire in a spent fuel storage pool or cask would release radioactive Cesium-137 into the atmosphere, and even the armed forces would not be able to stop its lethal spread. Open your eyes to the dangers of terrorist threats as you consider another 20 years, and just say no. |
| | CONCLUSION: |
| | The NRC must include within its scope of study ALL the outstanding environmental issues, before seriously considering allowing another 20 years of Diablo operations. On-going monitoring is not a substitute for thorough assessment of serious problems. |
|
| |
|
| TO: NRC Staff
| | Jane Swanson janeslo@kcbx.net janeslo@me.com (805) 595-2605}} |
| | |
| FROM: SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE
| |
| | |
| RE: SLOMFP assessment of NRC scoping functions over 37 years My name is Jane Swanson, and this a fternoon I am speaking for the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. This statement takes a long-range perspective. At the evening session SLOMFP will present 3 very specific scoping issues that fit
| |
| | |
| within NRC criteria.
| |
| | |
| Our non-profit group has served a unique role since 1973, when SLOMFP made the commitment to pursue available legal channels to oppose the licensing of the aptly-named Diablo: a nuclear plant and radi oactive waste storage site built next to an active earthquake fault. Over t he decades we have conducted an on-going assessment of the scoping of issues considered and not considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Now, 37 years later, we offer the executive summary of our decades long study.
| |
| | |
| SLOMFP sees an adverse trend in the NRC's failure to interface with the real world. The agency has created a fictional r eality- bubble, a labyrinth of rules and regulations that does not connect with the world inhabited by other federal agencies or the general public.
| |
| | |
| I will offer just three examples of issues that have great potential for damaging the environment.
| |
| | |
| EXAMPLE 1: THE CALIFORNIA COAST IS AN EARTHQUAKE ZONE:
| |
| | |
| The NRC (then the Atomic Energy Commission) in 1984 and 1985 licensed Diablo's two reactors, despite the fact that it was and remains against NRC regulations to allow nuclear facilities to be sited next to major, active earthquake faults. The Hosgri has not gone away; new faults have been discovered but not thoroughly studied. Include new seismic info rmation as you consider another 20 years, and just say no.
| |
| | |
| EXAMPLE 2: THERE IS NOWHERE TO STORE RADIOACTIVE WASTES
| |
| | |
| The NRC consistently ignores the reality that there is no location, plan, or technology in place or on the horizon to isolate radioactive waste from the biosphere for the required quarter of a million years - or a million years if you accept EPA standards. The agency has already given 57 license extensions to other plants. Include the problems of addi tional wastes as you consider another 20 years, and just say no.
| |
| | |
| EXAMPLE 3: NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE TARGETS OF TERRORISTS
| |
| | |
| The Department of Homeland Security, t he FBI and other federal agencies state that nuclear facilities are, by definition, targets of terrorists. And yet the NRC does not protect nuclear facilities with no-fly zones. Neither does it require nuclear plant operators to protect reactors or radioactive wastes from attack from the air. NRC regulations consider it suff icient to out-source "mitigation" of any such attack to the military. In the real world, a fire in a spent fuel storage pool or cask would release radioactive Cesium-137 into the atmosphere, and even the armed forces would not be able to stop its lethal spread. Open your eyes to the dangers of terrorist threats as you cons ider another 20 years, and just say no.
| |
| | |
| CONCLUSION:
| |
| | |
| The NRC must include within its sc ope of study ALL the outstanding environmental issues, before seriously c onsidering allowing an other 20 years of Diablo operations. "On-going monitoring" is not a substitute for thorough assessment of serious problems.
| |
| | |
| Jane Swanson janeslo@kcbx.net | |
| | |
| janeslo@me.com | |
| | |
| (805) 595-2605}} | |
|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML24029A2902024-01-29029 January 2024 Comment (3) E-mail Regarding Diablo Canyon Lr EIS Scoping ML24025A1542024-01-25025 January 2024 Comment (2) E-mail Regarding Diablo Canyon Lr EIS Scoping ML24025A1402024-01-24024 January 2024 Comment (1) E-mail Regarding Diablo Canyon Lr EIS Scoping ML22228A1642022-08-15015 August 2022 Comment (5) of Cindy Marie Absey, Neil Havlik & Kim Murry on Behalf of League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County, Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activ ML22203A0462022-07-21021 July 2022 Comment (3) of Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc., on Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report ML22203A0452022-07-21021 July 2022 Comment (2) of Jane Swanson on Behalf of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace on Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report ML22202A4242022-07-19019 July 2022 Comment (1) of Anonymous on Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report ML15275A2152015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (40) of Bruce Campbell on Helium Finding Adds New Wrinkle to Newport-Inglewood Fault ML15275A2132015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (38) of Mary Ivora on Environmental Benefits of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant ML15275A2292015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (31) Regarding Civilian Nuclear Power ML15275A2282015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (30) of Unknown Individual Opposing Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 ML15275A2302015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (32) of Joe Ivora Supporting the Relicensing of Diablo Canyon ML15275A2342015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (36) of Elizabeth Brousse on Behalf of Mothers for Peace on the License Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant ML15275A2312015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (33) of Debby Nicklas, on Behalf of French Hospital Medical Center, Supporting the License Renewal and Ongoing Operations of PG&E ML15282A3002015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (45) of Allen Myers Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant License Renewal ML15289A3742015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (84) of Gene Nelson of Californians for Green Nuclear Power Supporting Renewal of the License Application for Diablo Canyon Power Plant ML15292A5462015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (103) of Becky Ota and Craig Shuman, on Behalf of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, on Notice of Intent to Reinitiate the Environmental Scoping Process for the Review of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant License Renewal ML15287A4362015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (71) of Gene Nelson Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact ML15282A2982015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (43) of Minea Herwitz Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant License Renewal ML15258A3472015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (29) of Craig Shuman on Behalf of the State of CA - Natural Resources Agency, Regarding Notice of Intent to Reinitiate the Environmental Scoping Process for the Review of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ML15282A3042015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (49) of David Traub Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant License Renewal ML15282A3032015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (48) of Anonymous Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant License Renewal ML15292A5452015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (102) of Bruce Campbell on Deis in Regards to Diablo Canyon Facility License Extension ML15292A2362015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (92) of Oliver Mellan on Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License ML15292A2352015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (91) of Alexander Cannara on Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A2372015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (93) of Bob Greene on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A2382015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (88) of Meagan Wilson on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A2392015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (89) of Mike Kirkwood on Behalf of Economic Alliance of Northern Santa Barbara County on Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License ML15292A2402015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (90) of Oliver Mellan on Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License ML15292A3392015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (94) of Sarah Risley, Heather Tarango, Shilo Terek, Megan Wilson, and Kristin Zaitz Supporting Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3402015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (95) of Madeline Cimone on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3412015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (96) of Daryl Gale Opposing Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3892015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (97) of Anthony Allen Bisset Opposing on the Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 License; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3902015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (98) of Joseph Ivora on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15258A3452015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (28) of Ann Mcpherson, on Behalf of Us EPA, on Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Operating License Renewal for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California ML15292A3912015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (99) of Nina Beety, on Behalf of Smart Meter Harm, Opposing Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3922015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (100) of Margaret Smith on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A5442015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (101) of Antoinette Stein on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A4052015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (82) of Anthony Armini on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A4032015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (81) of William P Gloege on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A3132015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (83) of Gene Nelson Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A3142015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (85) of Lmh Anonymous Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A3152015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (86) from Anonymous Opposing Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A3162015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (87) of Steve Mcgrath Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A3982015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (76) William P. Gloege of Supporting Re-Licensing of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant ML15289A4022015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (80) of Jerry Brown on Behalf of World Business Academy on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A4012015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (79) of Kirk Gothier on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A4002015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (78) of Gene Nelson on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A3992015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (77) of Gene Nelson on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal ML15289A3972015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (75) of Jane Swanson on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal 2024-01-29
[Table view] |
Text
DiabloCanyonCEm Resource From: Jane Swanson [janeslo@kcbx.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:00 PM To: DiabloCanyonEIS Resource
Subject:
statement made at March 3 meeting, San Luis Obispo Attachments: scoping March 3 aft.doc; ATT00002.txt Attached for you convenience is the statement I read into the record at the 1:30 meeting March 3.
1
Federal Register Notice: 75FR4427 Comment Number: 3 Mail Envelope Properties (BC1DED63-2BDB-457A-9BCB-B813025E059A)
Subject:
statement made at March 3 meeting, San Luis Obispo Sent Date: 3/3/2010 7:00:29 PM Received Date: 3/3/2010 7:00:34 PM From: Jane Swanson Created By: janeslo@kcbx.net Recipients:
"DiabloCanyonEIS Resource" <DiabloCanyonEIS.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: kcbx.net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 101 3/3/2010 7:00:34 PM scoping March 3 aft.doc 24128 ATT00002.txt 138 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
March 3, 2010, 1:30 session of NRC scoping meeting in San Luis Obispo TO: NRC Staff FROM: SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE RE: SLOMFP assessment of NRC scoping functions over 37 years My name is Jane Swanson, and this afternoon I am speaking for the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. This statement takes a long-range perspective. At the evening session SLOMFP will present 3 very specific scoping issues that fit within NRC criteria.
Our non-profit group has served a unique role since 1973, when SLOMFP made the commitment to pursue available legal channels to oppose the licensing of the aptly-named Diablo: a nuclear plant and radioactive waste storage site built next to an active earthquake fault. Over the decades we have conducted an on-going assessment of the scoping of issues considered and not considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Now, 37 years later, we offer the executive summary of our decades long study.
SLOMFP sees an adverse trend in the NRCs failure to interface with the real world. The agency has created a fictional reality- bubble, a labyrinth of rules and regulations that does not connect with the world inhabited by other federal agencies or the general public.
I will offer just three examples of issues that have great potential for damaging the environment.
EXAMPLE 1: THE CALIFORNIA COAST IS AN EARTHQUAKE ZONE:
The NRC (then the Atomic Energy Commission) in 1984 and 1985 licensed Diablos two reactors, despite the fact that it was and remains against NRC regulations to allow nuclear facilities to be sited next to major, active earthquake faults. The Hosgri has not gone away; new faults have been discovered but not thoroughly studied. Include new seismic information as you consider another 20 years, and just say no.
EXAMPLE 2: THERE IS NOWHERE TO STORE RADIOACTIVE WASTES
The NRC consistently ignores the reality that there is no location, plan, or technology in place or on the horizon to isolate radioactive waste from the biosphere for the required quarter of a million years - or a million years if you accept EPA standards. The agency has already given 57 license extensions to other plants. Include the problems of additional wastes as you consider another 20 years, and just say no.
EXAMPLE 3: NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE TARGETS OF TERRORISTS The Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal agencies state that nuclear facilities are, by definition, targets of terrorists. And yet the NRC does not protect nuclear facilities with no-fly zones. Neither does it require nuclear plant operators to protect reactors or radioactive wastes from attack from the air. NRC regulations consider it sufficient to out-source mitigation of any such attack to the military. In the real world, a fire in a spent fuel storage pool or cask would release radioactive Cesium-137 into the atmosphere, and even the armed forces would not be able to stop its lethal spread. Open your eyes to the dangers of terrorist threats as you consider another 20 years, and just say no.
CONCLUSION:
The NRC must include within its scope of study ALL the outstanding environmental issues, before seriously considering allowing another 20 years of Diablo operations. On-going monitoring is not a substitute for thorough assessment of serious problems.
Jane Swanson janeslo@kcbx.net janeslo@me.com (805) 595-2605