|
|
Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| RE: ca This is to acknowledge receipt of your communication to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. | | RE: ca This is to acknowledge receipt of your communication to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. |
| Thank you for your input.Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | | Thank you for your input.Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
| -3JJ From: Eddy.N@verizon.net | | -3JJ From: Eddy.N@verizon.net |
| [mailto:Eddy.N@verizon.net] | | [mailto:Eddy.N@verizon.net] |
| -0 Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:08 PM C-To: CHAIRMAN Resource | | -0 Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:08 PM C-To: CHAIRMAN Resource |
|
---|
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: Eddy.N@verizon.net 16 Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:48 AM To: CHAIRMAN Resource -7
Subject:
RE: ca We also demand NRC to force Edison to refund the $1 bi S from ratepayers From: CHAIRMAN Resource [mailto: CHAIRMAN.
Resource@nrc.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 5:12 AM To: Eddy. N @verizon.
net
Subject:
RE: ca This is to acknowledge receipt of your communication to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thank you for your input.Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-3JJ From: Eddy.N@verizon.net
[1]
-0 Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:08 PM C-To: CHAIRMAN Resource
Subject:
ca E.N)f Dear Allison The American people are outraged and we join the people of California and Los Angeles to demand NRC to conduct extended investigations before any restart at the San Onofre nuclear power plant. The move reflects a deep-rooted public opposition to resumed operations at reactors perched in a tsunami zone near earthquake faults that threaten all of southern California.
Meanwhile, yet another top-level insider has told ABC News that San Onofre Units 2 and 3 are not safe to operate. On April 23, LA's eleven City Council members approved a resolution directing NRC to "make no decision about restarting either San Onofre unit" until it conducts a"prudent, transparent and precautionary" investigation.
LA wants "ample opportunity" for public comment and confirmation that "mandated repairs, replacements, or other actions" have been completed to guarantee the public safety.California's largest city joins Del Mar, Encinitas, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Santa Monica, Solana Beach, Vista, Berkeley, Fairfax and the San Diego Unified School District board in asking NRC to take all steps necessary to guarantee the public safety. We demand that NRC make utility officials testify under oath in public before San Onofre might be allowed to go back on line. The sentiment has been echoed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who chairs the Senate committee that oversees NRC. Boxer has been joined by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) in questioning whether Southern California Edison knew steam generators being installed at San Onofre were faulty.The new Mitsubishi generators cost $770 million but critical tubes began banging together and sprang leaks after less than a year of operations.
As many as 17% of the plant's 19,400 tubes may have been involved.
The reactors were shut in January, 2012 but Edison has since billed ratepayers
$1 billion for them, even though SUNSI Review Complete 1 Template = ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= B. Benney (bjb) they've generated no electricity for more than a year. The utility lied and says it needs the reactors' power for the coming southern California summer, even though the region operated just fine last summer without them.We demand NRC to order Edison to stop gouging customers.
ABC News has broadcast warnings from a 25-year insider at San Onofre. "There is something grossly wrong," the whistleblower told a San Diego TV.Fearing reprisals, the whistleblower appeared in a carefully disguised appearance.
Edison wants to operate Unit Two for five months on an experimental basis. But there are 8 million people living within a 50-mile radius. "If an accident like this happens, (an) emergency plan is not geared to handle such a public safety devastation," says ABC's inside source. "Those things have never been practiced or demonstrated in a drill scenario." GAO has recently confirmed the confused state of nuclear evacuation planning nationwide, a warning picked up by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA). Such warnings echo those of former NRC Chair Greg Jaczko, who has told the public that none of the 104 reactors currently licensed to operate in the US are safe. The industry, he says, is"just rolling the dice" by continuing to operate these commercial reactors, including San Onofre. Edison has dismissed Jaczko, GAO and the whistleblower's warnings in demanding a June 1 restart. Boxer and Markey want NRC to refuse approval until public hearings can be held, and we are outraged that NRC is rushing ahead with the licensing process.The unanimous resolution from LA and so many other southern California communities have a very significant impact. Putting Edison, Mitsubishi and the reactors' inside operators under oath, on the stand, in front of the public would answer key questions about some very expensive decisions that have put the health, safety and economy of southern California at serious risk. Despite Edison's fierce opposition, renewables are spreading rapidly throughout the region. With no real need for San Onofre's power, we say to Obama and NRC, a radioactive cloud from a restarted San Onofre could completely contaminate San Diego, Los Angeles and the central valley, carrying all the way across the US within 4 days. Senator Boxer and Los Angeles are right to demand complete transparency and total public access to everything there is to know about this infernal machine. Obama and NRC, this power plant must be shut down forever, and the time is now.2