ML13149A340

Comment (387) of Susan Brown on Behalf of Sierra Club Opposing Restart of San Onofre Units

ML13149A340
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	04/17/2013
From:	Brown S Sierra Club
To:	Macfarlane A M NRC/Chairman
References
78FR22576 00387
Download: ML13149A340 (2)

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